An Open Letter to CMD

Dear Sir,

I am a Direct Recruit Officers of this esteemed organization Bank of India and would
first like to congratulate you for being appointed as Chairman & MD of this Bank. I
hope your returns will bring the past laurels of the Bank and our Star will be shine
brighter.

Sir, I am taking liberty here to represent the case of all the DROs recruited in the
organization who are deeply saddened and let down by the HR policies brought by the
Management over the past one year very much arbitrarily and draconian. A faction
among us is very impatient and eager to appeal before the law of the land against all
the injustice brought upon us with the hidden vendetta best known to the Management
while very few people like me still have the trust on our Bank and the Management.
We believe in what the Supreme Court observed in the Case Rashtriya Mazdoor
Sangh vs Appollo Mills Ltd. that an employee unlike a servant is entitled to make a
complaint against its employer and employer may on enquiry be punished. And why
not when employees are assessed on the basis of Staff Accountability Report (SAR);
the Management must be assessed on the consequences of the crucial policies
brought by it.

Sir, we request reference to Circular No. 4/11/1/2011-IR dated 14.03.2012 issued by

DFS detailing the Guidelines for Promotion in Public Sector Banks and subsequent
clarifications issued vide circulars dated 26.06.2012, 03.05.2012, 04.04.2013 &
22.05.2013.

The DFS vide its Circular No. 4/11/1/2011-IR dated 14.03.2012 prescribed a minimum
service experience requirement of 3 years under Merit/Fast Track Channel for
Promotion from Scale I to II in Public Sector Banks. It also allowed several relaxations
including 1 year of maximum permissible relaxation in service experience and later on
increased this relaxation to 18 months and 12 months on different occasions. Our
organization approved its Promotion Policy vide Circular No. 105/183 dated 15.02.2012
and modified vide Circular No. 106/26 dated 03.05.2012 as per the provisions of the
Circular issued by DFS. It also allowed for relaxations to the maximum as mandated
by DFS.

However, during the Promotion Process for 2016-17, it made a paradigm shift in the
existing policy and required a minimum of 4 years of service experience for being
eligible for promotion from Scale I to II under Merit/Fast Track Channel. This revision
in policy vide Circular No. 110/42 dated 18.05.2016 left each and every officer of 2013
batch ineligible for participating in the promotion process. It must be noted that we
were the only victims of this revision in policy as the DROs of 2012 batch had already
participated in promotion process in 2015 and those of 2011 batch in 2014 & 2015.

It was neither the case that there were not enough vacancies in Scale II as during the
Promotion Process of 2016-17, the Bank had declared 767 vacancies (including
Specialist Officers) for Scale II against the eligible candidates of 1592 while only 304
candidates were declared successful. We may simply assume that there were not
enough candidates participating in the process vis a vis the number of vacancies.

Now, in 2017 while we were expecting a relaxation in the service experience, the
Bank has decided to go ahead with the same guidelines as of last year and thus
making us once again ineligible for promotion. It is worth reiterating here that it's not
the case that there are not enough vacancies in Scale II; the Bank had declared 1219
vacancies against 1597 eligible candidates. The scenario will be scarcer this time as
only 167 candidates were found to be eligible for interview.

We do not have any objection to that also, because this policy decision was taken a
year ago and we have silently supported it. But what is beyond our understanding is
the intention and purpose of the Management for providing multiple opportunities to a
section of its employees and keeping another section deprived of any such opportunity.
In 2016, those who have applied were not considered good enough to be promoted,
considering a large number of vacancies announced were not filled (leaving 463
vaccancies unfilled). This year i.e. in 2017, the only officers who have appeared for
promotion process in addition to those who applied last year would be from the batch
of 2012 (DROs or Promoted officers). But even they had appeared once in 2015 when
they were either promoted or considered not good enough for promotion at that point
. o appear for promotion process this year
had reduced their competition and gave an easy route of promotion to those officers
who were earlier considered not good enough for promotion at least on one occasion.
This was promoting mediocrity in our understanding. These officers may have done
exceptionally well in last one or/and two years of service which can be easily justified
through their APRs and KRAs linked to HRMS system. But if this was the case then a
lot of our batch mates would not have got the opportunity to head different branches
in different zones, maximum being Scale II branches, few being Scale III branch.
There is a significant number of scale I officers from 2013 batch or later years who
have either worked or been working as Branch Managers or designated officers in
Zones or branches. Most of these branches are Scale II branches and were previously
been headed by Scale II officers. A couple of these branches are Scale III branches.
All of these officers have performed better in their role and capacity in respect to their
senior peers. Some were also rewarded by the higher/competent authorities. If the
vacancy of Scale II officers have normalized resulting in increased criteria and no
relaxation, why scale I officers were given roles of Scale II officers even before
completion of their mandatory 2 years of probation. Here we would like to inform you
that our batch has been working as Branch Managers since July 2015, a Batch which
was inducted in Banks services in July-August-September 2013. Sir, we were never
asking for simply promoting us just because we have worked as Branch Managers in
Scale II branches. What we were asking was a fair chance to compete for promotion
along with those which the management consider eligible for promotion for 2017
process. Then let the process designed by the Bank decide who is more deserving of
the job.

Our intention has found its life and breath in the Constitution of India, Directive
Principles of State Policy and several of the landmark judgements of the Supreme
Court and other courts of the country. The Delhi High Court had very rightly observed
( )
promotion but employer cannot arbitrarily and without any reasonable excuse deprive
an employee of his legitimate expectation for being considered for promotion to a post
.
( M ) t
to be considered for promotion against the available vacancy and promoted if adjudged
.

And what more a Management could be averse to the career development of its own
employees that the Bank vide its Project No. 2017-18/1 Notice dated 10.04.2017
decided to recruit 400 General Banking Officers in Scale II for open market. The irony
is that the Management required only two years of banking experience for the eligible
candidates. The Management had last time also resorted to same unethical and
unprofessional practice. We DROs have multiple questions in our mind

1. Why our organization is allowing same set of people to appear for promotion
process again and again?
2. Why after considering candidates not fit for promotion are being allowed to appear
again without further addition in the number of eligible candidates? Is our bank
promoting mediocrity?
3. If there were sufficient Scale II officers, why are we working in capacities of Scale
II officers?
4. Would we have a healthy career growth if we continue working with same zeal and
passion?
5. Does the Management believe that the exposure in our Bank is very much inferior
to what DROs earn in other Banks so that inviting them for promotion and keeping its
loyal and dedicates employees at bay?

Sir, these are the questions in the minds of every young DROs not just this 2013
Batch. But these are questions we are not asking to our organization, but to
ourselves. I am here to convey our thought process because we are not sure that
after being ignored for two consecutive years, we would be able to work with same
passion towards taking this organization to greater heights.

On 23rd December 2016 itself, we came to know that Board Meeting of our Bank was
scheduled on dated 24.01.2017; and some of our batch mates thought that if we could
make our representation and aspirations to General Manager (HR); some relaxations
could be approved in the Board Meeting. So a delegation of DROs of our Batch
scheduled a meeting with GM-HR on the same day. We are very much thankful to our
GM who made time out of his busy schedule to address our concerns albeit it failed
to solve our issues.

The minutes of the meeting were:

1. The meeting started with the strong opinion poised by GM right from
the beginning to the end of the meeting that the relaxations allowed in previous
years was a blunder on part of the Management and that now only they are
rectifying it for last two years. GM-HR not once buzzed from this very stance
during the entire discussion. Then why opting for same sort of experience
requirement from open market?
2.
exposure to be considered for promotion for Scale II. We objectively expressed
our dissent that officers in this batch were already working in the capacity of
Scale II officers and several officers even in the capacity of Scale III.
 3. He escaped the discussion that why the officers of Scale I are
bestowed with responsibilities of higher scale when they could not be
promoted and that the Management did a
exposure.
4. The delegation of our Batch went to the extent of requesting him to
raise the bar of selection -Introduce any sort of screening to refine the
candidates but at least let the officers participate in the process. He vehemently
denied for any such thing.
5. The GM-HR opined that we officers are being saved from the
disgrace, humiliation and indignity we might face if we get promoted and
there happens some fraud/vigilance enquiry in the branch where we are
M . how we
will be saved if something alike will happen while we are working in the
capacity of Scale I Branch Manager. Neither such remarks could be
appreciated by the Management.
6. The delegation of our Batch cited the promotion process of 2016-17
where around 463 vacancies were left unfilled but no relaxations were allowed
by the Management. He accepted that the fate of this year
process will not be different from last time. Then why to initiate such
promotion process at all when Management is aware of the reality.

And what it seems like some personal enmity of the Management with the DROs for
the reasons best known to them only that a new Transfer Policy was circulated with
Branch Circular No. 111/9 dated 02.04.2017. (The most amusing part is that the
Annexure to the Circular bears the Date as 25.04.2017). The Circular stipulated under
3.4 Re-Transfer to Home Zone Para 6:

O , /
his/her place of domicile exists be considered after completion of five years of
service from the date of his/her reporting to the place of initial posting, including
ser .
In the mentioned circular under Para 4 it mentions:

, -transfer to home zone or the concerned zone wherein

his/her domicile exists, the request of Officer employees in Scale I, II and III be
considered on completion of 4 years of service in other zone/s for the first time and
after completion of 3 years of service in other zone/s on second and subsequent
occasions.

Also, as per Para 7:

F other
zone/s, the cut off date would be 30th June in respect of officers seeking transfer
.

The Para 6 & 7 is the latest addition to the policy and we could not comprehend in
our right mind the logic behind this. How can an organization that had an established
practice of completing the recruitment/joining formalities during August November
each year can decide of a cut off date as early as 30th June?

Also, Do we need to remind the Management of the Right to Equality guaranteed by

our Constitution under Article 14 (Equality before law), Article 15 (prohibition of
discrimination) & Article 16 (equality of opportunity in matters of public employment)?
Do we need to remind the Management that Direct Recruit Officers/DROs are if not
superior not even inferior to Promotee Officers and should not be subjected to such
discriminatory policies? Do we need to remind the Management of Section 3(3) of the
Official Langauage Act, 1963 that all the Resolutions, General Orders, Rules,
Notifications, Administrative and other report and Press Communique should invariably
be published in HINDI & ENGLISH?

Sir, the Officers of this Batch have worked very hard over the last 3 and a half year
and were expecting that Management would appreciate and recognize their dedication
and hard work. We were not asking for any direct promotion but an opportunity to
participate in the very process. If this promotion process would be continued it would
only end up suffocating the moral and confidence of this Batch.

Sir, banking is a service oriented industry where we are the interface between the
Bank and the customers. How can an organization thrive when its employees are
dissatisfied and discontent with its policies? We have a customer retention policy so
that our customers continue to remain with us but we never bothered to have an
employee retention policy!!! We desperately need to implement a sustainable HR policy
and complete overhaul of the existing system if we wish to flourish in this difficult
time.

Yours faithfully,

Amit Kumar

Copy To-

1. Shri Pranab Mukherjee, Honourable President, Union of India

2. Shri Narendra Modi, Honourable PM, Govt. of India
3. Shri Arun Jaitely, Honourable Finance Minister, Govt. of India
4. Shri Girish Chandra Murmu, Additional Secretary(FS) & Govt. Nominee in Board
of Director