Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22961 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. All Bihar Banking Business Facilitators Associates Through Its President Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S/o - Sri Shyam Bahadur Singh, Resident Of Village - Lasagari Chak, Post - Hazarat Sain, District - Patna 2. Pankaj Kumar Son Of Bundela Thakur Resident Of Village - Patringa, P.O. + P.S. - Sigori, District - Patna 3. Ram Kumar S/O - Sri Sakaldeo Singh Resident Of Village - Fatehpur, P.O. - Makhmilpur, P.S. - Paliganj, District - Patna 4. Lalan Chakaravarti S/O - Sri Shyam Bahadur Singh R/O Village - Khaprail Chak, P.O. & P.S. - Parsa Bazar, District - Patna 5. Raju Kumar S/O - Sri Rameshwar Ram Resident Of Village - Dhanarua, P.O. - Dhanarua, P.S. - Dhanarua, District - Patna 6. Pramod Kumar Poddar Son Of Late Dhaturi Poddar Resident Of Village + P.O. - Chakala Maula Nagar, District - Katihar 7. Manoj Kumar S/O - Sri Sunil Sharma Resident Of Village - Shekhpura, P.O. - Nandlalwad, District - Patna 8. Satyadeo Kumar S/O - Ramnandan Sharma Resident Of Village + P.O. - Indrapuri Station Road Barh, District - Patna 9. Vijay Kumar Singh S/O - Late Bhola Singh Resident Of Village - Best Malahi, P.O. - Barh, District - Patna 10. Manish Chandra S/O - Mr. Akhilanand Resident Of Village + P.O. - Sihi, District - Patna 11. Narayan Kumar S/O - Mr. Chandra Bhushan Singh Resident Of Village - Mungila, P.O. - Shankarpur Imamganj, District - Patna 12. Akhilesh Kumar Singh S/O - Sri Ram Naresh Singh Resident Of Village - Nirkhpur, P.O. - Paliganj, District - Patna 13. Kamlakant S/O - Mr. Akhilanand Resident Of Village - Sihi, P.O. - Sihi, District - Patna 14. Upendra Kumar S/O - Manoranjan Sinha Resident Of Village - Lahiyar Chak, P.O. - Alampur Gonpura, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District - Patna 15. Ram Bachan Yadav S/O - Late Abhay Charan Ray Resident Of Village - Mahamadpur, P.O. - Khagaul, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District - Patna 16. Abnit Kumar Tiwari S/O - Mr. Chandra Tiwari Resident Of Village - Anandpuri Baba Boring Road, Paliganj, P.O. + P.S. - Paliganj, District - Patna 17. Ajay Kumar Singh S/O - Mr. Ramswarup Singh Resident Of Village + P.O. - Bahpura, P.S. - Bihta, District - Patna 18. Rajeev Ranjan S/O - Sri Rajendra Prasad Sinha Resident Of Village - Pipardhan, P.O. - Sarsi, District - Patna 19. Puskar Kumar S/O - Sri Binay Kumar Resident Of Village + P.O. - Datiyana, Via - Vikram, District - Patna 20. Satyendra Kumar Sinha S/O - Late Sachidanand Sinha Resident Of Mohalla - Mahavir Nagar, Behind M.I.G., 190, Hanuman Nagar, District - Patna 21. Surendra Prasad Sinha S/O - Late Karu Ray Resident Of Village - Uttimpur Bhuski, P.O. - Khushrupur, District - Patna 22. Ajeet Kumar S/O - Sri Nageshwar Raut Resident Of Village + P.O. - Basuara, Via - Bhauara, District - Madhubani 23. Ashishanand Mishra S/O - Sri Shitlanand Mishra Resident Of Village - Nahar, P.O. - Bhagavatipur, P.S. - Pandaul, District - Madhubani Patna High Court CWJC No.22961 of 2012 (8) dt. 20 -08-2013 2/13 24. Randhir Kumar Pandey S/O - Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey Resident Of Village + P.O. - Goh, P.S. - Goh, District - Aurangabad 25. Shashi Bhushan Sharma S/O - Sri Ramaslok Mistri Resident Of Village - Vahbalpur, P.O. - Guraru, District - Gaya 26. Nibha Kumari D/O - Dr. Rajendra Prasad Resident Of Village + P.O. - Khijar Saray, P.S. - Khijar Saray, District - Gaya 27. Balbant Kumar S/O - Sri Uday Singh Resident Of Village - Musi, P.O. - Makhdumpur, P.S. - Makhdumpur, District - Jehanabad 28. Ravikant Kumar S/O - Sri Laljit Prasad Sharma Resident Of Village - Rampur, P.O. - Rampur, P.S. - Makhadumpur, District - Jehanabad 29. Upendra Kumar S/O - Late Shiyaram Saw Resident Of Village + P.O. - Kajisaray, P.S. - Kako, District - Jehanabad 30. Ashutosh Kumar S/O - Sri Ramcharan Saran Resident Of Village + P.O. - Narbha, P.S. - Hulasganj, District - Jehanabad 31. Ajay Kumar S/O - Bilash Yadav Resident Of Village - Lakhisarai, P.O. - Malathi, P.S. - Ghoshi, District - Jehanabad 32. Bindu Mati Karn Wife Of Shri Krishn Murari Prasad Resident Of Village - Bakipur Brahmsthan Gali Daledali Road Patna, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Chief General Manager, P.N.B. -7, Bhikagkama Palace, New Delhi 2. The Punjab National Bank, Financial Inclusion Division, Atmaram House, Tolstay Marg, New Delhi Through A.G.M. 3. The A.G.M., Punjab National Bank, Financial Inclusion Division Atmaram House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi 4. The Chief Manager, P.N.B. Priority Sections Lead Bank Division, Financial Inclusion Cell, Circle Officer, Patna 5. The General Manager (Field), P.N.B. Chanakya Tower R. Block, Patna 6. Dy. General Manager, P.N.B. Chanakya Tower, R. Block, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Kumar Malhotra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR CAV ORDER 8 20-08-2013 In the present writ petition the petitioner no. 1, an unregistered Association, represented by its President Sri Shashi Bhushan Kumar and 31 other petitioners, have claimed that they were appointed as individual Business Patna High Court CWJC No.22961 of 2012 (8) dt. 20 -08-2013 3/13 Facilitators in Punjab National Bank. 2- The petitioners, while invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India, have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing of an order passed by AGM Planning & Development Circle Office, Patna, dated
Decision
24.11.2011 (contained in Annexure – 8 to the writ petition), whereby, incumbents were advised to dispense with the services of all those Business Facilitators with effect from 1.12.2011 in whose cases renewal had not been done by the Circle Office and in whose cases police verification was not done and all the branches were advised to discontinue the services of such Business Facilitators immediately to save the risk of the Bank; for a direction to quash the consequential notices of termination issued to the petitioners in view of earlier order dated 24.11.2011 and for a direction to the respondents to take work from petitioners as earlier in the capacity of Business Facilitators in the Branches where they were appointed. Patna High Court CWJC No.22961 of 2012 (8) dt. 20 -08-2013 4/13 3- It has been pleaded that petitioners were appointed as Business Facilitators in different Branches of Punjab National Bank and they were continuing. The appointment of Business Facilitators was made in view of policy decision of the Reserve Bank Of India, which was taken on 25.1.2006. The Reserve Bank Of India had taken a policy decision to make the banking services affordable, appreciable to rural and remote area persons etc. and for that very purpose the services of intermediaries including individuals for providing financial / banking service through the use of Business Facilitators and Correspondent Models were to be taken and in view of the decision, the Punjab National Bank formulated a scheme for extension of banking services through Business Facilitators. A Circular to this effect vide Circular No. 2 / 2009 was issued. Thereafter, the petitioners were appointed as Business Facilitators in different Branches of the Punjab National Bank. After their appointment they were given proper training by the Bank and started working sincerely for the Patna High Court CWJC No.22961 of 2012 (8) dt. 20 -08-2013 5/13 upliftment of business of the Bank and they were continuing. However, in the meanwhile, the Bank vide impugned order took a decision to terminate their services without seeking any explanation or issuance of any notice to the petitioners. 4- Sri Naresh Kumar Malhotra, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that after appointment of petitioners, an agreement was entered in between the petitioners and the Bank vide M.O.U. Though, as per agreement, appointment was for one year, subject to renewal, the petitioners continued even after expiry of one year, and as such, automatically, it will be deemed that their agreement was impliedly renewed, and as such, without any notice to the petitioners, the officials of the Bank were not authorized to terminate their services. While referring to Annexure – 10 to the writ petition, it has been argued that in respect of two persons namely, Vijay Kumar Singh and Satyadeo Kumar, who were appointed as Business Patna High Court CWJC No.22961 of 2012 (8) dt. 20 -08-2013 6/13 Facilitators, their appointment has been extended by renewal of the agreement. Taking aid of Annexure – 10 to the writ petition it was argued that Respondent / Bank has adopted pick and choose method , and as such, the Bank has proceeded in an arbitrary manner. Accordingly, it has been prayed for quashing of Annexure – 8 to the writ petition as well as for quashing of consequential notices of termination issued to the petitioners in view of Annexure - 8 to the writ petition and the petitioners may be allowed to continue in the capacity of Business Facilitators. 5- Sri Suresh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents/Punjab National Bank, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He has argued that it is true that petitioners were engaged as Business Facilitators, but they were engaged only for 12 months and after expiry of 12 months their engagement has automatically come to an end since it was never renewed save and except in special cases in terms of Annexure - 8 to the writ petition. He has further argued that Annexure – Patna High Court CWJC No.22961 of 2012 (8) dt. 20 -08-2013 7/13 8 was a policy decision taken by the Bank. The Bank has received lot of complaints against individual Business Facilitators. They were not generating fresh business from the field due to action and inaction. In some cases, complaints were received from the Branches that though Business Facilitators had received money from customers for depositing in their Bank Accounts, they did not deposit the same in their Bank Accounts. Keeping in view the interest of the Bank by a policy decision it was decided to dispense with the services of such Business Facilitators in whose cases renewal had not been done by the Circle Office and in whose cases police verification was not done. He submits that since it was a policy decision of the Bank, this court may not interfere in the matter. Moreover, according to learned counsel for the Bank after expiry of period of 12 months for which Business Facilitators were engaged, in absence of any extension it has automatically come to an end. While referring specifically to statement made in paragraph no. 5 and 8 to the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that after expiry of period of one year even Patna High Court CWJC No.22961 of 2012 (8) dt. 20 -08-2013 8/13 without extension many of the Business Facilitators remained working voluntarily and started to work as middlemen and lot of complaints against such Business Facilitators were received. Moreover, after expiry of period of 12 months they have already been dispensed with from the Bank. He further submits that in cases of some of Business Facilitators, whose services were found satisfactory and who had submitted police verification report and had entered into M.O.U. their services have been extended clearly stipulating the terms and conditions of the job for further extension of one year subject to quarterly review of their performance. He has argued that fairness on the part of the Bank is evident from the fact that cases of some of the petitioners of the present case was considered for renewal and extension has been granted. While referring to Annexure - E at page no. 31 of the counter affidavit he submits that the case of petitioner no. 8 Satyadeo Kumar, who is one of the Business Facilitators was considered for its renewal and was renewed for a period of further one year. This was done on 29.11.2012. In any event, it has Patna High Court CWJC No.22961 of 2012 (8) dt. 20 -08-2013 9/13 been submitted that no indefeasible right was created in favour of the petitioners since their engagement was for a period of one year only. 6- On examination of Annexure – 1 to the writ petition it is evident that Reserve Bank Of India had instructed All Scheduled Commercial Banks to use services of Non Governmental Organizations / Self Help Groups / Micro Finance Institutions and other Civil Society Organizations as intermediaries in providing financial and banking services through the use of Business Facilitators and Correspondent Models. This was to be done with an objective of using greater financial inclusion and increasing the outreach of the banking sector. As per Annexure – 1 Bank was required to pay reasonable commission / fee to the Business Facilitators. Subsequently, the Punjab National Bank took a decision for engaging Business Facilitators. Of- course, in the present writ petition the petitioners have asserted that they were appointed as Business Facilitators , however, they have not brought on record any chit of paper Patna High Court CWJC No.22961 of 2012 (8) dt. 20 -08-2013 10/13 to show as to whether even single petitioner was issued appointment letter save and except one M.O.U. entered in between petitioner no. 6 - Pramod Kumar Poddar and Punjab National Bank, which has been enclosed as Annexure - 6 to the writ petition. On bare perusal of Annexure -6 it is evident that engagement was for a period of one year from 4.6.2010 to 4.6.2011 subject to renewal for a further specified period on satisfactory performance and as mutually agreed by the parties. Meaning thereby, that even in case of petitioner no. 6 only document to show his engagement is M.O.U., which was for a period of one year. In the writ petition the petitioners have not brought on record even a single chit of paper whereby their engagement was shown to be extended. Meaning thereby, that after expiry of one year from the date of execution of M.O.U., in absence of any renewal, it has automatically come to an end. This fact has been reiterated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents / Bank. Learned counsel for the Bank has rightly relied on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2012 (1) PLJR SC 321 Patna High Court CWJC No.22961 of 2012 (8) dt. 20 -08-2013 11/13 (GRIDCO Limited & Anr. vs. Sri Sadananda Doloi & Ors.). It would be appropriate to refer to paragraph no. 28 of the said judgment , which is quoted hereinbelow:- “28. It is also evident that the renewal of the contract of employment depended upon the perception of the management as to the usefulness of the respondent and the need for an incumbent in the position held by him. Both these aspects rested entirely in the discretion of the Corporation. The respondent was in the service of another employer before he chose to accept a contractual employment offered to him by the Corporation which was limited in tenure and terminable by three months’ notice on either side. In that view, therefore, there was no element of any unfair treatment or unequal bargaining power between the appellant and the respondent to call for an over- sympathetic or protective approach towards the latter. We need to remind ourselves that in the modern commercial world, executives are engaged on account of their expertise in a particular filed and those who are Patna High Court CWJC No.22961 of 2012 (8) dt. 20 -08-2013 12/13 so employed are free to leave or be asked to leave by the employer. Contractual appointments work only if the same are mutually beneficial to both the contracting parties and not otherwise.” 7- In view of position clarified by the Apex Court as indicated above, as well as in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that the petitioners have not accrued any fundamental right or any other legal right for their enforcement by invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court. Moreover, in the writ petition though petitioners have prayed for quashing of notices of their termination not even a single such notice has been brought on record. Since their engagement was only for a period of 12 months for providing business facility to the Bank, the petitioners may not claim, as a matter of right, to continue to render such services even after expiry of the period of agreement in absence any renewal or extension. Moreover, almost in similar circumstances Business Facilitators of State Bank Patna High Court CWJC No.22961 of 2012 (8) dt. 20 -08-2013 13/13 Of India had approached this court by invoking its writ jurisdiction vide CWJC No. 14622 of 2012 and CWJC No. 14440 of 2012 and this court considering the judgments and orders of other High Courts has not inclined to interfere into the matter and dismissed the writ petitions by order dated 8.8.2013. Accordingly, I do not find any ground for interference in the present writ petition also and the same stands dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/-