The merger of five affiliate banks with the State Bank of India (SBI) is a significant matter that the Telangana High Court has chosen to consider. A division bench led by Justice G.M. Moinuddin and Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh accepted an appeal submitted by P.T.M. Gopala Krishna and others.
The government orders that were issued during the merger of State Banks of Bikaner and Jaipur, Hyderabad, Mysore, Patiala, and Travancore with SBI have been contested by the petitioners. They maintained that the revised terms of service that were implemented following the merger were arbitrary and unlawful.
They claim that the March 2017 option letters compelled workers to resign or accept the revised terms of employment. They also argued that the top general manager, who lacked the legal authority to establish service conditions, was the one who issued these letters. Only the SBI Central Board was authorized to make such judgments under the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Workers at merging associate banks have complained that they do not receive the same benefits and perks as regular SBI workers.
According to the statement, service jurisprudence is unaware of this so-called choice letter.If a permanent employee or officer disagrees with the new terms and conditions that management has imposed, they cannot be forced to leave. Furthermore, no terms and conditions of service authorized by the Central Board of the Transferee Bank, State Bank of India, are mentioned in the so-called offer of employment letter dated March 29, 2017. Thus, it is evident that CGM lacks the power to unilaterally issue employment offer letters that have not been authorized or approved by the Transferee Bank's Central Board.
It goes on to say that a review of the choices made under Clause No. 3 reveals that Associate Bank employees have experienced hostile discrimination. Probationary officers and trainee officers at SBI will receive four more increments, while those at Associate Banks will not receive those same increments, as stated explicitly in Clause 3(b) of the Annexure to the offer letter. Put another way, there is flagrant and obvious prejudice against probationary officers and trainee officers of associate banks when it comes to raises.
SBI previously purchased State Bank of Indore on August 28, 2010, and State Bank of Saurashtra on August 23, 2008.While acquiring State Bank of Saurashtra, the terminal benefits, pension, gratuity, and Bank’s Contribution to Provident Fund (with interest), were given to them.
As stated in Section 2(a) of the Terms & Conditions of Service Applicable to Officer Employees of State Bank of Indore (SBIN), SBI provided the same terminal benefits, pension, gratuity, and Bank's Contribution to Provident Fund (with interest) to its officers during the acquisition of SB Indore.
As a result, based on previous experience, the officers of the Associate Banks had a right to expect that SBI would provide them with comparable advantages. Their petition had previously been denied by a one-judge panel. The petitioners lacked the legal standing to contest the government's orders, the court had decided. Additionally, it noted that the majority of associate bank executives had willingly switched from the contributory provident fund system to the pension plan.
However, the appellants have now argued that the earlier judgment ignored crucial legal issues and wrongly relied on developments that happened after their case was filed.Taking note of these submissions, the High Court bench has issued notice to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and has posted the case for further hearing.
