"Pendency of Criminal Case No Bar to Legal Appointments Under Absorption Scheme": Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Directs JK Bank to Consider Petitioners Within Two Months
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani held that the pendency of criminal cases arising from FIRs filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau shall not serve as a barrier to the legitimate consideration of employment claims under the J&K Bank's absorption scheme. The court directed the respondents to immediately consider the petitioners' cases for regularization in accordance with the Bank’s absorption policy and to take a formal decision within two months from the date a certified copy of the judgment is submitted. It was further clarified that the pendency of FIRs, seizure of records, or policy closure would not preclude such consideration.
The petition was filed by three individuals, all residents of Pulwama, who claimed to have served the J&K Bank as casual workers (sweepers) at various branches. The petitioners alleged that despite their eligibility and inclusion in the final select list under the Bank’s "Absorption Policy," the respondents failed to issue them formal appointment orders, while similarly situated individuals were extended such benefits.
Petitioner No.1 was initially engaged at RSETI Pulwama on 11.07.2011 and continued until December 2012, after which he served via an outsourcing agency. Petitioner No.2 was engaged on 28.02.2014 and transitioned to outsourcing from 01.03.2015. Petitioner No.3 began on 26.12.2012 and was outsourced from 30.07.2014. All petitioners claimed continuous service since their initial engagement.
According to the petitioners, the Bank floated a scheme to regularize casual workers engaged before 30.09.2017, provided they had completed ten years of continuous service. The petitioners were allegedly covered by this scheme and were included in the Bank's internal documentation and selection lists. However, due to delays in forwarding their documentation, purportedly due to officer unavailability, their interviews were delayed, and they were subsequently not issued appointment orders.
They asserted that others, including those junior to them, received contractual appointments. Despite submitting police verification reports and necessary documents, the petitioners' requests were not acted upon, prompting them to seek judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Bank in its reply acknowledged the existence of the absorption scheme and issuance of orders to many eligible candidates but maintained that petitioners were among 200 individuals whose cases were pending. It cited the Anti-Corruption Bureau’s raid on 08.06.2019, the seizure of records, and subsequent Board Resolution No. 38 dated 15.06.2019 that halted further appointments pending Board approval. FIRs 10/2019 and 1/2020 were registered, and a charge sheet was filed concerning earlier appointments under the scheme.
While the Bank claimed petitioners were not cleared by the Document Scrutiny Committee due to delayed or missing documents (wage slips, PRC, and DOB certificates), the petitioners denied these claims and filed supplementary affidavits with documentary support, including proof of submission of all required materials. They further cited that they were not named as accused in the FIRs.
The petitioners also brought to the court's notice that appointments had been made even after the ACB raid, including an appointment dated 16.03.2022 of one Showket Ali Mir, allegedly contradicting the Bank’s claim of halting appointments post-raid.
The Bank argued that the petitioners, having worked through an outsourcing agency and not being on the Bank’s rolls, were ineligible under the scheme and that they had failed to challenge the scrutiny committee’s exclusion.
"The Respondent-bank pursuant to the formulation of the relevant absorption policy initiated the process thereunder by collecting the required information and the documents from all the eligible candidates. The petitioners along with other similarly situated eligible persons came to be enlisted and interviewed also."
"The Respondent-bank has repeatedly admitted in its pleadings that petitioners are among the 200 candidates whose engagement/appointment orders could not be yet issued."
"The respondents through successive pleadings have taken a U turn and unmindfully introduced new pleas."
"The petitioners are continuously working on their positions as casual workers and even this court during pendency of this writ petition passed interim order of status quo as also the orders upon the respondents to treat the petitioners at par with other similarly situated persons."
"The contention raised by the respondents in subsequent pleadings to the effect that the relevant scheme of absorption was closed and that the petitioners are not on the rolls of the bank appears to be after thought, and an attempt to usurp the rights of the petitioners having already accrued to them."
"The respondents cannot deny, equal treatment to the petitioners merely on the pretext of registration of case FIRs, seizure of relevant record and the presentation of the charge sheet before the court."
"The pendency of the case FIRs and the criminal cases/charge sheets is no bar for the respondent-bank to actively consider the cases of petitioners within the ambit of the relevant scheme, so that they do not stand discriminated in comparison to their other companions, similarly situated."
"The petitioners are entitled to be considered for their engagement/appointment as banking attendants/associates as per the scheme at par with the other similarly situated persons notwithstanding the alleged closure of the policy."
"The Respondent-bank even after alleged seizure of the record by Anti-Corruption Bureau, Srinagar, issued appointment orders in favour of so many persons while discriminating the petitioners."
"Discrimination among like persons offends the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 16, & 21, besides being violative of the principles of natural justice."
"The claim of the petitioners is not of general regularization but they seek the protection under an "Absorption Policy" of the Respondent-Bank, without any discrimination."
The Court directed that "the respondents shall immediately accord active consideration to the case of the petitioners for their regularization as per the Bank’s "Absorption Scheme" notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal cases culminating from case FIR 10/19 Police Station VOK, Srinagar dated 08.06.2019 and 01/20 of P/S ACB Srinagar dated 10.01.2020 and the alleged closure if any of the said scheme."
It was further ordered that "the consideration should be accorded and a formal decision taken in respect of the case of the petitioners within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order is left at the office of the respondents."
The Court clarified that "the petitioners upon being extended the benefit under the relevant Scheme shall meet the same fate of similarly situated beneficiaries of the Policy, at any subsequent stage, pursuant to and in the light of the final outcome of the pending cases (civil and criminal) if any."
Additionally, the Court observed that the respondent-bank may "seek scanned/Xerox copies of the seized documents, pertaining to the scheme, if required from the learned trial court (Special/Additional Judge Anti-Corruption Srinagar) in connection with the consideration of the case of petitioners as directed."
In light of the final judgment, the court disposed of the connected contempt petition.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. M.Y. Bhat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sajid Ahmad, Advocate & Mr. Prince Hamza, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Shafaqat Nazir, Advocate
Case Title: Parvez Ahmad Padroo & Ors v. J&K Bank Ltd & Ors
Case Number: WP (C) 1942/2020 c/w CCP (S) no. 54/2021
Bench: Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani
