Compensation that started at 65 lakh and later exceeded 2 crore annually
In the corridors of public employment, where rules exist to protect fairness and opportunity, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has paused to ask whether India's largest public sector bank honored those principles when it brought a retired officer back to lead its legal department. The court's notice to the State Bank of India reflects a broader tension between institutional convenience and the constitutional promise of equal opportunity — a promise that, once bent for one, may quietly diminish the prospects of many.
- A retired SBI officer, whose regular service ended in 2018, was reappointed and had his contract extended to 2026 — pushing him well past the age-65 ceiling that Ministry of Finance circulars were designed to enforce.
- Compensation for the role swelled from roughly Rs 65 lakh to over Rs 2 crore annually, raising urgent questions about whether public funds were being deployed with appropriate restraint.
- Serving employees who might have risen into senior legal roles found their path blocked, turning what looks like one man's appointment into a systemic grievance about career suppression within the bank.
- An RTI request for details of the selection process was refused in December 2024, deepening suspicions that the appointment was not merely irregular but deliberately shielded from scrutiny.
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued notice to SBI and scheduled a hearing for September 22, signaling that the bench regards the constitutional questions raised — under Articles 14 and 16 — as worthy of a serious answer.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued notice to the State Bank of India after a petition challenged the appointment of a retired officer to the bank's top legal position, alleging violations of age norms, compensation rules, and constitutional protections for fair public employment.
The officer originally joined SBI in 1978 and retired in July 2018 upon turning 60. He was soon rehired as an advisor, and in 2019 was appointed head of the legal department on a contract basis following a public advertisement. That contract was later extended through 2026 — a timeline that would carry him well beyond 65, the age at which two government circulars, issued in 2008 and 2015, say re-employment of retired public sector bank officials should ordinarily end. The petitioner argues the appointment does not meet the exceptional threshold those circulars require.
The financial dimension compounds the concern. Compensation began at around Rs 65 lakh annually and reportedly grew to over Rs 2 crore — a package the petitioner argues came at the direct expense of serving employees whose career advancement was effectively foreclosed by the hire.
The legitimacy of the selection process has also been questioned. Despite a public advertisement, the petitioner suspects the outcome may have been predetermined. That suspicion hardened when an RTI application seeking appointment records was rejected in December 2024, lending weight to allegations of concealment.
Invoking Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks the appointment's quashing, full disclosure of relevant documents, and a formal inquiry into the selection process. The court has set the next hearing for September 22, leaving the matter open but signaling it intends to hold SBI accountable for its response.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a notice to the State Bank of India after a petition challenged the appointment of a retired officer to the bank's top legal position, alleging the move violated age restrictions, compensation norms, and constitutional safeguards meant to protect fair employment in the public sector.
The officer in question joined SBI in 1978 and completed his regular service on July 31, 2018, when he turned 60. Rather than exit entirely, he was brought back as an advisor that same year. In 2019, following a public advertisement, he was appointed as head of the legal department on a contract basis. His tenure was then extended through 2026—a timeline that would allow him to work well beyond 65, the age at which the Ministry of Finance has said re-employment of retired bank officials should generally cease.
Two government circulars, issued in December 2008 and January 2015, explicitly state that bringing back retired public sector bank employees should happen only in exceptional cases. The petitioner argues this appointment does not qualify as exceptional and therefore breaches those directives. The extension itself becomes the mechanism for the violation: by stretching his contract to 2026, the bank effectively allows the officer to exceed the age ceiling that policy intended to enforce.
Beyond the age question lies the matter of money. The appointment came with compensation that started at around 65 lakh rupees annually and later ballooned to more than 2 crore rupees per year. The petitioner contends this generous package came at a cost to the bank's own workforce. By hiring the retired officer on such terms, the argument goes, the bank blocked advancement opportunities for serving employees who might otherwise have moved into senior roles. The appointment thus created a double injury: it circumvented rules meant to protect the integrity of public sector hiring, and it did so while spending lavishly in a way that disadvantaged the bank's own staff.
The selection process itself has drawn scrutiny. Though an advertisement was issued, the petitioner questions whether the process was genuinely open or whether the outcome was predetermined. That suspicion deepened when an RTI application seeking details of the appointment was rejected on December 10, 2024. The refusal to disclose records fueled the allegation that something irregular had occurred and was being concealed.
The petition invokes Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in public employment. The petitioner is asking the court to quash the appointment entirely, compel the bank to release all relevant documents, and launch an inquiry into how the selection was conducted. The High Court has scheduled the next hearing for September 22, leaving the matter unresolved for now but signaling that the bench takes the allegations seriously enough to demand SBI's response.
Citações Notáveis
The appointment resulted in loss of career progression for eligible serving employees— Petitioner's allegation in the High Court petition
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would a bank extend a retired officer's contract so far beyond the normal retirement age?
The petition suggests it wasn't a straightforward business decision. The officer was brought back as an advisor first, then appointed through an advertised process. But the extension to 2026 appears designed to keep him employed past 65, which government policy says should be rare.
What makes this a constitutional issue rather than just a personnel matter?
The Constitution guarantees equal opportunity in public employment. If the bank bypassed its own serving employees to hire a retiree at premium pay, it arguably denied those employees their constitutional right to fair advancement.
The compensation jumped from 65 lakh to over 2 crore. How does that happen?
The petition doesn't explain the jump, but the scale is striking. That kind of escalation in a few years suggests either the role's scope expanded dramatically or the compensation structure was unusually generous from the start.
Why would the bank refuse to release RTI information about the appointment?
That's what makes the petitioner suspicious. If the process was transparent and proper, there's no obvious reason to withhold details. The refusal itself becomes evidence of something to hide.
What happens if the court agrees with the petitioner?
The appointment could be quashed, the officer removed, and the bank forced to conduct a proper, open selection process. It would also likely trigger an investigation into how this happened in the first place.