Central Bank Of India vs. Sandip Pralhad Ingole

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2760-2761 OF 2023

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

SANDIP PRALHAD INGOLE & ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

These appeals arise out of the orders dated 08.07.2019 and 08.02.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in W.P. No. 8275 of 2018 and MCAST No. 19326 of 2019 respectively. The High Court, while allowing the writ petition, issued certain directions relying upon the Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.08.2012 entered into between the Management-Bank and the Employees' Federation which prompted/culminated into the Management-Bank issuing a Circular Letter No. CO:HRD:IRP:2012:13:17 dated 14.08.2012. The directions read as follows:-

"i. The writ petition is partly allowed.

ii. We direct to the respondent bank to fulfil its obligation under the Memorandum of Settlement dated 9 th August, 2012 imposing a duty to initiate the recruitment process only as one time measure for

selecting, from amongst casual and temporary workers, "Safai Karmachari cum Sub Staff" on full time basis within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of order.

iii. By issuing such directions, we have not taken away discretion of the bank to determine the availability of the vacancies and to adopt a particular procedure for making recruitments or select or reject candidates on the basis of performance and on merit and other similar factors.

iv. Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order as to costs."

**As per the said Memorandum of Settlement, it was agreed that the temporary and casual workers engaged in the Bank and who have put in a minimum 45 days' service during a continuous period of 12 months may be permitted to participate in the ensuing recruitment process for the selection of "**Safai Karmachari-cum-sub-staff" and/or 'Sub-Staff' as a one-time measure.

Considering the said Memorandum of Settlement, the High Court found that though there was some delay in moving the writ petition, but looking to the obligation of the Bank, as agreed, which has not been discharged in its right perspective, the above directions were issued. In fact, the High Court found that to fulfil the obligations under the Memorandum of Settlement, the Bank had indeed initiated recruitment process for selection of "Safai Karmachari-cum-sub-staff**", but midway through, the process of recruitment was cancelled for some of the regions.**

**In the said context, while allowing the writ petition, it was directed that the Bank shall fulfil its obligations under the Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.08.2012 and initiate the recruitment process only as a one-time measure for selecting from amongst the casual/temporary workers, '**Safai Karmachari-cum-sub-staff' on full time basis within a period of six months from the receipt of the order.

The High Court has further observed that, while issuing such a direction, the right of the Bank to determine the availability of the vacancies and to adopt a particular procedure for making recruitments or select or reject candidates on the basis of performance and on merit and other similar factors, has not been taken away.

3

After hearing Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel for the appellant-Bank and Mr. Rituraj Biswas, learned counsel for the respondents, and considering the contents of the Memorandum of Settlement and the obligation, which is required to be discharged by the Bank, we are of the opinion that the Management Bank has not honoured its commitment given under the Memorandum of Settlement. In fact, the Bank had taken steps to initiate the recruitment process in furtherance of the Settlement and by a subsequent communication cancelled the process selectively for some of the regions. The High Court, while allowing the petition, directed the Bank to fulfil its obligation within the time stipulated therein by the impugned order(s). In our view, the High Court has not committed any error, while dealing with the terms of the Memorandum of Settlement in passing the impugned order(s).

In view of the foregoing, we are not inclined to interfere with the order(s) impugned. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, the process of selection, as directed by the High

4

Court, may now be completed within a period of six months from today.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

.......................J. [ J. K. MAHESHWARI ]

.......................J. [ K. V. VISWANATHAN ]

New Delhi; JULY 13, 2023.

ITEM NO.115 COURT NO.13 SECTION III

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 2760-2761/2023

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

SANDIP PRALHAD INGOLE & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 47265/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Date : 13-07-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN

For Appellant(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv. Mr. Ajeyo Sharma, Adv. Mr. Keith Varghese, Adv. Ms. Kirti Sharma, Adv. for M/S. J S Wad And Co, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rituraj Biswas, AOR Mr. Mayan Prasad, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar, Adv. Ms. Sujaya Bardhan, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The Civil Appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (VIRENDER SINGH) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER

of.

(Signed order is placed on the file)