The Hyderabad High Court on Thursday directed the State Bank of India to temporarily halt its merger with its subsidiaries till concerns of all staff are addressed. While hearing a motion moved by officers of the State Bank of Hyderabad and Associate Banks Officers Association, the bench asked the SBI, the Reserve Bank of India and the Finance Ministry to not act on the options provided by officers of the SBI subsidiaries till June 15, The Times of India reported.

The employees of the associate banks were asked to indicate whether they would opt for the SBI’s Terminal Benefit Conditions or continue with the benefits presently available at their respective banks after the merger, according to The Hindu. Those choosing SBI’s policy would be entitled to provident fund, gratuity and its Defined Contributory Pension Scheme, as available to SBI employees.

However, this will be applicable to only those who joined after April 1, 2010. The SBI’s Special Compensatory Allowance and Special Balancing Allowance will also not be available to officers of subsidiary banks.

Employees and officers of SBI’s associate banks have raised concerns about the post-merger working conditions for non-SBI staff. The petitioners have alleged that the SBI had given employees of its subsidiary banks little time to consider the options, which they had to submit by April 13. They fear they may not be treated on par with SBI employees after the merger, The Times of India reported.

On February 16, SBI had merged with five of its associate banks – State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, State Bank of Hyderabad, State Bank of Mysore, State Bank of Patiala and State Bank of Travancore. The Andhra Pradesh and Telangana Bank Employees Federation has claimed that the SBI management was not concerned about employees and was interested only in the assets of and business created by the State Bank of Hyderabad.

“When there is no clarity on the issue, how can employees decide whether they want to join? The court has seen contradictions and given relief,” ABOA General Secretary Harshvardhan Madabhushi told TOI.

Senior counsel R Vaigai, who appeared for the petitioners, argued that the officers were forced to submit their options in haste and without any clarity about their future in the new entity. There had been no clarity on pension benefits, seniority, among other matters, she said.

The case will be heard again in the first week of June.