The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman. He was appointed as Guard/Armed Guard in State Bank of India by Ext.P1 appointment letter dated 18.8.2011 on the terms and conditions set out therein. It was stipulated therein that he will be on probation for a period of six months with effect from the date of joining service. Pursuant to Ext.P1 appointment letter, the petitioner joined duty as Guard/Armed Guard in the Koonimedu branch of State Bank of India in the State of Tamil Nadu, on 24.8.2011.
2. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Mahe in the Union Territory of Pondichery. While the petitioner was working as Guard/Armed Guard in State Bank of India, his name was forwarded by the Department of Sainik Welfare, Puducherry for recruitment of Armed Guard in Indian Bank, Mahe. Thereupon, the Chief Manager (Administration) in the Zonal Office of Indian Bank at Ernakulam sent Ext.P2 letter to the petitioner inviting him to appear for the physical fitness test and interview scheduled to be held on 4.10.2012 in the premises of Indian Bank at Mahe. He was also informed that he will have to submit two copies of the duly filled bio data at the time of interview. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner reported in Indian Bank, Mahe branch on 4.10.2012 and submitted a bio-data in the prescribed format wherein he had disclosed the fact that he is employed as Guard/Armed Guard in Koonimedu branch of State Bank of India.
3. After the physical fitness test and interview were held, the petitioner was selected for appointment as Peon-cum-Armed Guard in the Mahe branch of Indian Bank. Ext.P3 letter of appointment dated 19.11.2012 was thereupon issued by the Zonal Manager in the Zonal Office of Indian Bank at Ernakulam. By that letter, he was directed to report for duty in the Mahe branch on 30.11.2012 together with all the documents listed therein. Upon receipt of Ext.P3 letter, as stated therein, the petitioner forwarded a duplicate copy of the appointment order duly signed by him to the Zonal Manager, Indian Bank on 27.11.2012 by registered post. The petitioner thereafter appeared before the second respondent (Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Mahe branch) and submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 30.11.2012 addressed to the Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Ernakulam, requesting for 40 days' further time to join duty. In that letter he had stated that he is working as Guard/Armed Guard in State Bank of India, Koonimedu branch, that on being informed about his appointment in Indian Bank, the Manager, State Bank of India, Koonimedu branch informed him that the relieving order can be issued only after 30 days and therefore, he may be given a further period of 40 days to join duty.
4. It is not in dispute that the second respondent received the original of Ext.P4 on 30.11.2012. The endorsement made by him on Ext.P4 as also the averments in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit dated 1.4.2013 establish the said fact. Respondents 1 and 2 did not reject the petitioner's request for time to join duty or take the stand that by virtue of his appointment as Guard/Armed Guard in State Bank of India, he is ineligible to be appointed as Peon/Armed Guard in Indian Bank. They also did not sent a reply to the petitioner either granting his request in Ext.P4 or rejecting it. A few days later, to be exact on 27.11.2012, the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Koonimedu branch informed him as per Ext.P5 letter dated 27.12.2012 that his letter of resignation has been accepted by the competent authority and therefore, he will be relieved from the close of business on 27.12.2012. The petitioner has averred that after he was relieved from State Bank of India, he reported before the second respondent on 31.12.2012 and requested for permission to join duty, but the second respondent asked him to await orders from the higher authorities. The petitioner has further averred that he thereupon sent the original of Ext.P6 letter dated 31.12.2012 to the second respondent by registered post, requesting for permission to join duty as Peon/Armed Guard, that it was delivered to the second respondent on 2.1.2013, that shortly thereafter the petitioner received the original of Ext.P7 letter dated 4.1.2013 which was posted from Mahe only on 8.1.2013 informing him that as per Government of India guidelines he cannot be given the benefits available to Ex-servicemen, as he is already employed as Armed Guard in State Bank of India and therefore, the offer of appointment stands cancelled. The petitioner has averred that he thereupon submitted Ext.P9 representation dated 10.1.2013 to the Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Ernakulam setting out the above facts and requesting him to reconsider his decision and to permit him to join duty. In the instant writ petition filed on 29.1.2013, the petitioner challenges Ext.P7 and seeks the following reliefs:-
“(a) Call for the records connected with the case;
(b) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P7 and direct Respondent No.1 issue orders allowing the Petitioner to join duty as Peon-cum-Armed Guard at Indian Bank, Mahe Branch;
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing Respondent No.1 and 2 to grant salary and all other benefits from 31.12.2012.”
5. The main ground raised in the writ petition is that the guidelines referred to in Ext.P7 have no application to employment in public sector undertakings or autonomous bodies but only to employment in Government service and therefore, Ext.P7 is liable to be set aside. Yet another contention raised is that after Ext.P3 letter of appointment dated 19.11.2012 was issued and it was accepted by the petitioner and the acceptance communicated to respondents 1 and 2 by Ext.P4 representation dated 30.11.2012, respondents 1 and 2 who were aware of the fact that he was employed in State Bank of India as Guard/Armed Guard at the time when he appeared for the physical fitness test and interview, are estopped, after his resignation from State Bank of India was accepted, to contend that he is not entitled to the benefits available to an Ex-serviceman. The petitioner has also averred that he had disclosed the fact that he is employed in State Bank of India in the bio data submitted by him at the time of the physical fitness test and interview on 4.10.2012, that he had reported as directed in Ext.P3 letter of appointment on 30.11.2012 before the second respondent Branch Manager and submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 30.11.2012 (the receipt of which is admitted) wherein also he had referred to the fact that he is employed in State Bank of India. It is contended that as the letter of appointment was not withdrawn before 30.11.2012 and in any case before his resignation from State Bank of India was accepted, the stand taken in Ext.P7 cannot be countenanced.
6. A counter affidavit dated 1.4.2013 has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. In paragraph 4 thereof, the first respondent has admitted the fact that the petitioner had on 30.11.2012 submitted Ext.P4 representation seeking extension of time for joining duty on the ground that before joining duty he has to be relieved from State Bank of India. The first respondent has however stated that by Ext.P7 letter dated 4.1.2013 that request was rejected. The counter affidavit proceeds to state that as per the Government of India's guidelines, the benefits available to Ex-servicemen are not admissible to Ex- servicemen who have already availed the benefit for their first re- employment and therefore, the offer of appointment was cancelled. The first respondent has also referred to and relied on Ext.R1(a) Office Memorandum dated 7.11.1989 issued by the Government of India in support of the said contention. Relying on Ext.R1(a) it is contended that the petitioner cannot in view of the stipulations therein, seek benefits available to an Ex-serviceman for the reason that at the time when Ext.P3 letter of appointment was issued, he was employed as Guard/Armed Guard in State Bank of India. It is also contended that as the petitioner did not join duty before 30.11.2012, his offer of appointment stood cancelled. As regards the averment that the petitioner has resigned from State Bank of India, the stand taken in the counter affidavit is that it was at his risk.
7. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 4.4.2013 reiterating the averments in the writ petition. He has also averred that within a period of one month from 30.11.2012 when he had admittedly reported before the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Mahe, no intimation was given to him and it was only after he resigned from State Bank of India that Ext.P7 letter was sent, revoking the letter of appointment.
8. I heard Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.S.Easwaran, learned standing counsel appearing for Indian Bank. Though State Bank of India has been served it has not chosen to enter appearance. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether by virtue of the petitioner's appointment as Guard/Armed Guard in State Bank of India under Ext.P1 letter of appointment dated 18.8.2011, the petitioner is disabled from seeking appointment as Armed Guard in Indian Bank, Mahe branch. The materials on record disclose that it was at a point of time when the petitioner was working as Guard/Armed Guard in the Koonimedu branch of State Bank of India that his name was forwarded by the Sainik Welfare Board, Puducherry to the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Mahe branch. He in turn issued Ext.P2 letter inviting the petitioner to appear for physical fitness test and interview on 4.10.2012 in the Mahe branch of Indian Bank. The petitioner appeared and submitted a bio data in the prescribed format wherein he had disclosed the fact that he was then employed as Guard/Armed Guard in the Koonimedu branch of State Bank of India. Notwithstanding that fact he was permitted to participate in the physical fitness test and interview and he was selected for appointment as Peon/Armed Guard in Mahe branch of Indian Bank. Ext.P3 letter of appointment followed. As per that letter he was directed to report for duty at the Mahe branch of Indian Bank on 30.11.2012 together with all the documents. It is not in dispute that the petitioner reported before the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Mahe branch on 30.11.2012 and submitted the original of Ext.P4 representation dated 30.11.2012 requesting for 40 days' time from 30.11.2012 to join duty. The reason stated therein was that he was then working in Koonimedu branch of State Bank of India, that the Manager, State Bank of India, Koonimedu branch has informed him that relieving can be effected only after 30 days and therefore, 40 days' time may be granted. Ext.P3 letter of appointment is dated 19.11.2012 and it was delivered to the petitioner only on 26.11.2012. The petitioner had immediately on receipt of the letter of appointment, accepted the offer of appointment by returning a duplicate copy thereof to the Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Ernakulam. He had referred to these facts in Ext.P4 representation, which reads as follows:-
“As per the reference cited above, I am appointed as Peon-Cum-Armed Guard in the Indian Bank and posted to Mahe Branch and also directed me to report for duty in the Mahe Branch on 30.11.2012. I have accepted the above offer of appointment and the duplicate copy of the offer of appointment duly signed and submitted to the Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Ernakulam on 27.11.2012 by registered post, as directed.
In this connection I submit the following for your kind consideration and favourable orders. At present I am working as Guard/Armed Guard in the SBI, Koonimedu Branch, Villupuram District from 24-8-2011 onwards. I had informed the Manager, S.B.I., Koonimedu Branch regarding the above Offer of appointment and posting order in the Indian Bank, Mahe Branch which is very near to my residence place and requested to relieve me from State Bank of India, Koonimedu Branch from the post of Guard/Armed Guard and kindly issue a relieving certificate to this effect as as to enable me to join duty in the Indian Bank, Mahe Branch.
But the Manager, SBI, Koonimedu Branch is told me that the relieving can be effected only after 30 days and relieving certificate will issue accordingly, as per the rules of the Bank.
In the above circumstances it is most respectfully submitted that a period of 40 days from 30.11.2012 may kindly be allowed me to join duty in the above post in the Indian Bank, Mahe Branch at your earliest convenience.”
9. As stated earlier, the petitioner is a permanent resident of Mahe in the Union Territory of Pondichery. At the time when he applied for appointment as Peon/Armed Guard in Indian Bank he was working in Tamil Nadu. Employment at Mahe was therefore to his advantage. It was on account of this fact that he accepted the offer of appointment in Indian Bank, Mahe branch and sought time to be relieved from State Bank of India. The request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 came to the notice of the second respondent on 30.11.2012 and the Zonal Manager immediately thereafter. The Zonal Manager who issued Ext.P7, did not reject the petitioner's request for joining time or question his very candidature for more than a month. In the meanwhile, the resignation tendered by the petitioner was accepted by the competent authority in State Bank of India and he was relieved on 27.12.2012. He thereafter reported before the second respondent for joining duty. The second respondent did not permit him to rejoin duty and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to sent Ext.P6 representation by registered post to the second respondent and he received it on 2.1.2013. A week later the original of Ext.P7 letter dated 4.1.2013 was dispatched by post on 8.1.2013 informing the petitioner that as per the Government of India guidelines his re- employment is not in order and therefore, the offer of appointment stands cancelled.
10. Though at first blush it may appear that on the terms of Ext.R1(a) Official Memorandum, the petitioner is not entitled to second time benefit for re-employment as an Ex-serviceman, the fact remains that he had not suppressed the fact of his employment as an Ex- serviceman by State Bank of India at the time of the interview and physical fitness test which were held on 4.10.2012. Notwithstanding that fact he was selected for appointment as Armed Guard in Indian Bank, Mahe branch. A letter of appointment followed on 19.11.2012 and the petitioner received it on 26.11.2012. The very next day he communicated his acceptance of the appointment by registered post. As directed in the letter of appointment, he reported before the second respondent on 30.11.2012 and submitted the original of Ext.P4 wherein also he had referred to the fact that he was then employed in State Bank of India and he can join duty only after he is relieved from State Bank of India. That request was not rejected for more than a month and in the meanwhile, the petitioner's letter of resignation was accepted and he was relieved from State Bank of India on 27.12.2012.
11. Such a situation would not have arisen had the Zonal Manager who issued Ext.P7 been more vigilant and acted on the petitioner's request in time. He did not for reasons best known to him reject the request made in Ext.P4, the receipt of which is admitted, in time. If the Zonal Manager had responded to Ext.P4 and had rejected the request in time, the petitioner would have been in a position to withdraw the letter of resignation submitted by him to the competent authority in State Bank of India. The failure of the Zonal Manager to act in time and in any event before 27.12.2012 has resulted in a situation where an Ex-serviceman who was offered appointment as Armed Guard in Indian Bank has not only been denied appointment but also lost his employment in State Bank of India which he had got as an Ex-serviceman. It is the policy of Government of India to secure re-employment to Ex-serviceman. That will be defeated in the instant case if this Court were to adopt a technical view and non-suit the petitioner. Timely action of the Zonal Manager would have prevented the situation in which the petitioner is now placed, from arising. In such circumstances, as the petitioner had reported for joining duty pursuant to Ext.P3 letter of appointment in time and had alerted the competent authority in Indian Bank that he has to be relieved from State Bank of India before he can take up employment in Indian Bank, respondents 1 and 2 had a duty to either grant that request or reject it within a reasonable time. The delay on their part resulted in the petitioner's resignation from State Bank of India being accepted. The petitioner had disclosed the fact that he is employed in State Bank of India, even at the time of interview. In such circumstances, respondents 1 and 2 cannot in my opinion hold out against the petitioner the fact that at the time when Ext.P3 offer of appointment was given, he was employed in State Bank of India and therefore, the offer of appointment is liable to be cancelled. Such a course of action would in my opinion result in grave injustice to the petitioner and consequently to an Ex-serviceman. If Ext.P7 is allowed to stand, it will lead to a situation where the petitioner will never hereafter be in a position to claim re-employment as an Ex-serviceman. Such an eventuality has in my opinion to be avoided to secure the ends of justice. I accordingly hold that the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
For the reasons stated above, I allow the writ petition, set aside Ext.P7 and direct respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to join duty as Peon/Armed Guard in Mahe branch of Indian Bank on the day the petitioner reports before the Branch Manager with a certified copy of this judgment. No costs.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE vpv