Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.     7843     OF      2012   

State Bank of India and another          …Appellants

versus

Ms. Minshu Saxena and another    …Respondents

O     R     D     E     R   

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 13.1.2012 passed by the  

Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.  

37121 of 2011.  The operative portion of the High Court’s order reads as  

under:

“In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed.  The order  relating to discharge of the petitioner from service passed by  the General Manager (NW-II), State Bank of India, Human  Resources Department, 13 Floor, Local Head Office 11, Sansad  Marg, New Delhi on 13.05.2011 (Annexure No.9 to the writ  petition) is hereby quashed.  A direction is issued to the  respondent-bank to examine and evaluate the descriptive paper  of the written examination of the petitioner and to scrutinize the  case of the petitioner for confirmation on the basis of her  performance in the said descriptive paper and interview, if any.  Till a fresh decision is taken in this regard, the petitioner shall  be allowed to continue in service with continuity, on the post of  Probationary Officer and be paid emoluments, as would have  been payable to her, had her services not been discharged.  As  far as back wages are concerned, the petitioner would be  entitled to 50% of the back wages, which shall be paid to her  within one month of the production of certified copy of this  order.”

1

Page 2

2. By a separate judgment pronounced today in Civil Appeal Nos. 7841-

7842 of 2012 – State Bank of India and others v. Palak Modi and another,  

we have upheld an almost identical order passed by the High Court in Writ  

Petition (Civil) Nos. 1298 of 2011 and 1512 of 2011.

3. For the detailed reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgment which  

shall be read as part of this order, the appeal is dismissed.

4. The appellants are directed to reinstate respondent No.1 within 15  

days of the production of copy of this order before respondent No.3 and give  

her all consequential benefits like pay, allowances, etc. within next one  

month.  However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the  

competent authority from taking fresh decision in the matter of confirmation  

of respondent No.1 after giving her effective opportunity of hearing against  

the allegation of use of unfair means in the test held on 27.2.2011.

…..……….....……..….………………….…J.     [G.S. SINGHVI]

…………..………..….………………….…J.          [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]

New Delhi, December 03, 2012.  

2

Page 3

3