Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Order Date: 18 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: All India State Bank Officers Federation (registered trade union) and its General Secretary and member; Respondent: State Bank of India (SBI) and an additional respondent.
  • Writ petition filed as WPO 1278 of 2022 with GA 1 of 2022; hearings held on 25 April 2025, 11 February 2026 and 20 March 2026.
  • Petition challenged SBI circulars dated 30 April 2021 and 2 June 2021 that introduced “Mandatory Learning” for top executive officers (Scale I‑V) and linked completion of such learning to entitlement for reimbursement of expenses/allowances (conveyance, newspaper/magazine, cleansing material, labour charges, residential telephone/internet/broadband, mobile usage).
  • Petitioners alleged that officers who had not completed mandatory learning were denied reimbursements, reducing their monthly pay package by approximately Rs 10,000‑26,000 depending on grade.
  • Respondent argued that reimbursements are discretionary, not covered under the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 (SBIOSR), and may be withdrawn at any time; Rule 65(A) of the SBIOSR expressly authorises denial of reimbursement for officers failing to complete mandatory learning.
  • Both sides cited constitutional provisions (Article 14), prior Supreme Court judgments (Manmad Reddy v. Chandra Prakash Reddy, Vidrendra Krishna Mishra v. Union of India), and RBI guidelines on role‑based certification.
  • Additional arguments included differential treatment of suspended officers (who could still claim reimbursements), the bank’s need for up‑skilling to mitigate AML/CFT and cyber‑fraud risks, and the statutory basis for linking training to performance appraisal (5 % weightage).

Final Outcome

  • The Court held the petition maintainable but dismissed it, concluding that the officers have no legal right to the reimbursements and that Rule 65(A) validly links mandatory learning to reimbursement entitlement.
  • The circulars dated 30 April 2021 and 2 June 2021, as well as Rule 65(A), were upheld; the petitioners’ claim of violation of Article 14 was rejected.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Banking Regulation, Employment Benefits