Patna High Court - Orders
Rajendra Upadhyay And Ors vs The Union Of India And Ors on 15 February, 2023
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20465 of 2011
======================================================
1. Rajendra Upadhyay S/O Late Ram Niwas Upadhaya New Manpura, Ward
No. 10, Danapur, P.S. - Patna, Patna
2. Amit Kumar S/O Late Narbeshwar Prasad Resident Of Kurji Batupur,
Sadakat Ashram, P.S. - Digha, Patna - 10
3. Sri Brajesh Kumar Singh S/O Sri Ram Ratan Pd. Singh Resident Of 202,
Saket Galaxy, P.S. - Patliputra, Patna
4. Sri Manoj Kumar Jha Mgr. S/O Sri Dharani Dhar Jha Vastu Sarita Duplex,
Behind St. Karen'S School, Gola Road, P.S. - Danapur, Dist - Patna
5. Suchit Kumar Sinha S/O Sri Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha Resident Of Flat No.
402 Binda Vihar Appr, P.S. - Kankerbagh, P.S. - Kankarbagh
6. Sanjay Kumar S/O Sri K.N.P. Sinha Pnb , Resident Of Flat No - 202
Sagamlok Appt. Budha Colony, P.S.- Budha Ccolony, Dist- Patna
7. Sri Lokesh Narayan S/O Sri Saroj Kumar Singh Flat No 243 Sana Kutir,
Nehru Nagar, P.S. Patliputra, Dist - Patna
8. Sri Sushil Kumar S/O Late G.N. Srivastava Anupam Vihar Apptt. Flat No. -
402, Nehru Nagar, P.S. Patliputra, Patna- 13
9. Sri A.B. Amod S/O Late Rewati Kant Sinha Resident Of Kalyani Colony,
Behind Satya Gas Godown, Anisabad, P.S. Beur, Dist- Patna
10. Sri A.K. Srivastava Mgr S/O Late Rabindra Srivastava Flat No. 401,
Chandanvilla Appt Near Ara Garden Road, Jagdeopath, P.S. - Airport, Dist -
Patna
11. Sri Sanjay Suman S/O Late Anthony Joseph Magadh Colony Sadakat
Ashram, Kurji, P.S. - Digha, Dist- Patna
12. Sri Rakesh Kumar Sinha S/O Late Jitendra Prakash Sinha Near Dvc Gate,
Jakkanpur, P.S. - Jakkanpur, Patna
13. Sri Manoj Kumar Mgr S/O Sri Balmiki Singh D-43, Police Colony P.S.
Anisabad, Dist - Patna
14. Sri Raman Prakash S/O Late Lala Yogendra Prasad Flat No- 270 Road No.
5, Rajbanshi Nagar, P.S. Shastrinagar
15. Sri Vinod Kumar, Vidyarthi S/O Sri Raghuvir Paswan Resident Of At - Jat
Dumari, P.O. - Jat Dumari, P.S. - Punpun, Patna Bihar
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The Union Of India through Ministry of Finance, Banking Division, New
Delhi.
2. Indian Bank Association, World Trade Centre, 6th Floor, Mumbai- 400005
Through Its Chairman And It's 52 Members Bank Including Nationalised
Bank
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
Patna High Court CWJC No.20465 of 2011(6) dt.15-02-2023
2/4
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Devanshu Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
6 15-02-2023Despite liberty granted to learned proxy counsel yesterday to come prepared and argue the matter today, Mr. Devanshu Kumar, learned proxy counsel submits that the matter be adjourned and be fixed after Holi festival.
This case is of the year 2011. About one decade has gone past, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any adjournment.
Neither yesterday nor today anyone appeared on behalf of the respondents.
This Court has perused this writ application. It appears that the petitioners are questioning clause-F of the Bipartite settlement dated 27.03.2000 entered into between Indian Bank Association and its workman represented by the All India Employee's Association, National Confederation of Bank Employees, Bank Employees Federation of India, Indian National Bank's Employees Federation and National Organisation of Bank Workers.
It is stated that in the Bipartite settlement, it has been mentioned that for the purpose of settlement pension be costed @ 18.25% of incremental pay arrived at Merger of Dearness Patna High Court CWJC No.20465 of 2011(6) dt.15-02-2023 3/4 Allowance (DA) at C.P.I. 1616 points with the pay as per the settlement dated 14.02.1995 and 14.12.1996. It is further mentioned that from the above recitals in the Bipartite settlement, it would appear that there was a gap in the payment of Pension and the amount deposited for that purpose and to make over the additional cost each employee either pension optee or those who are contributory provident fund optee have to pay 8.25% extra of their wage.
It is the submission of the petitioners that under the Employees Provident Fund Act there was a deduction of only 10% from the wage whereas the person who opted for P.F. had to pay 8.25 % to fill up the gap of Pension Fund. In this way, the non- pension optee employees had to pay extra amount not for their gain and it is a contribution to be made towards the gap to fill up the Pension for the benefit of pension optee.
In several paragraphs of the writ application, the petitioners have questioned the terms of Bipartite settlement raising issue of discrimination against them.
This Court finds from the statements made in the writ application itself that the Bipartite settlement was entered into in the year 2000 but this writ application has been filed after 11 years thereof questioning clause-F of the Bipartite settlement Patna High Court CWJC No.20465 of 2011(6) dt.15-02-2023 4/4 (Annexure '3' to the writ application). Similar issues have also been raised as regards the Bipartite settlement dated 02.06.2005 (Annexure '4' to the writ application).
In the opinion of this Court, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked and the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court need not be exercised in the nature of the disputes wherein Bipartite settlement entered into between the Union and the Management in the year 2000 and 2005 are being questioned before this Court.
These matters cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction, hence, this writ application is dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) tusharika/-
U