PLI Scheme – Modification in the revised formula

Absence from Duty can’t be treated as Unauthorised Absence

The Patna High Court has ruled that mere absence from duty cannot by itself be treated as wilful or unauthorised absence, particularly when an employee provides medical records to support the absence.

This is a very important judgement related to bank employees. The case is related to a bank employee.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harish Kumar was hearing a petition filed by a State Bank of India (SBI) officer challenging notices through which the bank had treated him as having voluntarily vacated his service after he failed to report for duty.

The petitioner had joined SBI in 1989 and had completed more than 30 years of service. He was transferred from the Digha Branch in Patna to the Muzaffarpur Zone in June 2019 and was later placed at the disposal of the Regional Business Office in Bettiah.

The employee said that he was suffering from acute jaundice and had been advised complete rest for at least 45 days. His application for sick leave from July 1 to July 31, 2019 was approved through the bank’s HRMS portal.

He later developed severe pain in his legs and consulted an orthopaedic surgeon. The doctor advised him to take further rest until December 2019.

The bank subsequently declined the leave and treated his absence from June 29, 2019 onwards as unauthorised. It issued a notice under Rule 40(3) of the SBI Officers’ Service Rules, 1992, directing him to report for duty within 30 days. The notice stated that failure to report would result in him being deemed to have voluntarily vacated his office.

A second notice dated December 13, 2019 declared that the employee had voluntarily vacated his service with effect from December 7, 2019.

The High Court examined Rule 40 of the SBI Officers’ Service Rules. It noted that Rule 40(2) deals with an officer overstaying leave and allows the bank to take appropriate action. Rule 40(3), subject to certain conditions, allows prolonged absence to be treated as voluntary vacation of service.

However, the court said that the severe consequence under Rule 40(3) could not be imposed without first determining whether the employee’s absence was actually unauthorised or amounted to overstaying leave.

The court made a distinction between simple absence from duty and wilful or unauthorised absence. It observed that merely because an employee was not physically present at the place of posting, it could not automatically be concluded that the absence was deliberate or without justification.

The court said that when an employee claims to be absent because of medical reasons, the competent authority must consider the reasons given by the employee and examine the medical documents submitted in support of the claim.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had submitted medical prescriptions and reports. The bank had not specifically disputed or established that these medical documents were not genuine.

The court also observed that even if the initial leave approval had been granted by an authority that was not competent to sanction it, the bank should have forwarded the leave application to the competent authority for consideration. It could not simply treat the entire period of absence as unauthorised.

The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Krushnakant B. Parmar. The court noted that absence caused by compelling circumstances such as illness, an accident or hospitalisation cannot automatically be considered wilful absence or a lack of devotion to duty.

The court held that the bank’s action did not meet the requirements of fairness and reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution. It also found a violation of the principles of natural justice because the employee was not given a fair and meaningful opportunity to explain his alleged unauthorised absence before the serious consequence of voluntary vacation of service was imposed.

Why it's time for Indian Banks to finally adopt a five day working week

🔥 ৫-দিনের ব্যাংকিং — এখন এটি শুধুমাত্র ইউনিয়নের একটি চাহিদা নয়, এটি একটি যৌক্তিক প্রয়োজনীয়তা! 🏦

ভারতীয় ব্যাংকিং শিল্পের জন্য সোমবার থেকে শুক্রবার পর্যন্ত কাজের সময় নেওয়ার সময় কি এখনও আসেনি?

📌 সাম্প্রতিক বিস্তারিত নিবন্ধে, ৫-দিনের ব্যাংকিং বিষয়ে বেশ কিছু গুরুত্বপূর্ণ তথ্য উপস্থিত রয়েছে:

✅ ১.৮ মিলিয়ন ব্যাংক কর্মীদের সুস্থতা এবং কাজ-জীবন সম্পূর্ণ করা

✅ ২০২৪ সালে একটি পিয়ার-রিভিউয়াড গবেষণায়, ৮২.২% ব্যাংক কর্মীরা মাঝামাঝি-উচ্চ বার্নআউট অভিজ্ঞতা করেছেন।

যারা ৮ ঘন্টা বেশি কাজ করে তারা বার্নআউট এবং চাপের সম্পূর্ণ বেশি ঝুঁকি সহকারে আছে।

✅ আরএবি এবং সেন্ট্রাল সরকারের অফিসগুলি ১৯৮৫ সাল থেকে ৫ দিনের সপ্তাহে কাজ করছে।

স্টক এক্সচেঞ্জ এবং আর্থিক নিয়ন্ত্রকদের সম্প্রদায় জীবন সম্পূর্ণ কাজের সপ্তাহ রয়েছে। এলআইসি একটি ৫-দিনের সপ্তাহে কাজের সপ্তাহ গ্রহণ করেছে।

📱 অন্যদিকে, ডিজিটাল ব্যাংকিং গ্রাহকদের শারীরিক শাখাগুলিতে নির্ভর

যখন আরবিআই করতে পারে ৫ দিন, সরকার ৫ দিন, স্টক এক্সচেঞ্জ ৫ দিন, এলআইসি ৫ দিন...

তাহলে ব্যাংকারদের জন্য কেন ৬ দিন?

"দেশের সবার জন্য ৫ দিন, কিন্তু ব্যাংকারদের জন্য মাত্র ৬ দিন?"

এখন আমাদের শুধু নিশ্চয়তা দরকার নেই।

এখন আমাদের শুধু একটি প্রস্তাব দরকার নেই।

এখন আমাদের শুধু একটি কমিটি দরকার নেই।

🔥 চাইয়ে — বাস্তবায়নের তারিখ!

৫-দিনের ব্যাংকিং — এখনই বাস্তবায়ন করুন! 🏦✊

#5DayBanking #Bankers #BankEmployees #BankingNews #FiveDayBanking #UFBU #AIBEA #BankingIndustry #BankersUnity #BankerNilanjana

Wage comparison Bank RBI LICI

Expected DA for Bankers from Nov'26

Expected DA  Calculation Updated on 30.09.26 on the basis of CPI for the month of Aug'26 with the assumptions of CPI for the month of Sep'26 . The CPI for the month of Aug'26 announced on 30.09.26 as 154.40 with an increase of 1.20 points from Jul'26. (as per revised base year 2016) (The base year was changed from Oct 2020) 

1. Keeping in view of recent CPI announced , we may assume there would be an increase in CPI index by 1.20 point in the month of Sep'26. Accordingly, on this assumption, we may expect there would be an increase of 3.54% DA in terms of 12^th BPS on revised pay. Total 31.37% DA will become payable from Nov'26.
2. On assumptions if there is an increase in CPI index by 1.10 point in the month of Sep'26, we may expect there would be be an increase of 3.50% DA in terms of 12^th BPS on revised pay. Total 31.33 % DA will become payable from Nov'26.
3. On assumptions if there is an increase in CPI index 1.00 point in the month of Sep'26, we may expect there would be be an increase of 3.47% DA in terms of 12^th BPS on revised pay. Total 31.30% DA will become payable from Nov'26.

Govt proposal for 5 days Banking

As far as I received information regarding the 5-Day Banking:*

1. Govt has declined the proposal of 40mins extra working time in 5 days. DFS asked for an alternative as stakeholders are not ready for it.

2. There is a proposal of existing Saturday (1st and 3rd) as usual opening and on those Saturdays staff will come on rotation basis which means 5day for staff but 6day for customers.

3. There is another proposal of 7-day banking from DFS. Staff will come on a rotation basis and will work for 5 days but the bank will be opened for 7 days. (This is quite impossible because there are not sufficient staffs in small banks)

Govt is insisting on number 3, so that *merger* can get effective and staff shortage will not be any barrier to the proposal, but they are not ready to recruit more staff in the banking sector rather they are asking to promote digital system and Alternate channels.

So like bipartite settlement, a committee has been formed so that they can talk to the stakeholders for an alternative solution to implement 5 day banking asap..

Govt has also craftily included customers to the list of stakeholders, and we know that the majority of customers don't want this.

So, the first meeting of this committee is very important and let's see what comes out...

For 5 days banking 47 meeting already gone..... How many ufbu need?