Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohanlal Gupta vs Madhyanchal Gramin Bank on 16 June, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 16 th OF JUNE, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 9925 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
MOHANLAL GUPTA, S/O SHRI B.L GUPTA, AGED ABOUT
62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED OFFICER
MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK, BEHIND SPS MALL,
URRAHAT, REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANURAG GOHIL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK, THROURH ITS
CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE, PODDAR COLONY,
TILI ROAD, SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GENERAL MANAGER, (ADMINISTRATION)
MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK, SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ASHISH SHROTI - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed against the order dated 23/3/2015 passed by General Manager (Administration), Mandhyachal Gramin Bank in letter no./Karmik:931. The controversy revolves in a very narrow compass.
2. The petitioner was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier (UDC). He was granted promotion to the post of Field Supervisor by order dated 1/6/1983 in the pay Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONIKA CHOURASIA Signing time: 21-06-2023 10:48:45 2 scale of 740-15-800-20-900-25-1000-30-1180.
3. It appears that a recruitment process was initiated by the respondents for direct recruitment to the post of OJM-I which was a post of officer cadre having the basic pay scale of 925-25-1000-30-1150 E.B.-30-1210-40-1450-50- 1500. However, at a later stage, the petitioner was removed from service after holding the departmental enquiry.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that after the removal of the petitioner from service, he was entitled for outstanding dues. However, for calculating those dues, the respondents have not counted the services rendered by the petitioner from 5/9/1979 i.e. the date on which the petitioner was appointed as clerk-cum-cashier (UDC) till 30/6/1983 and has counted the services from 1/7/1983.
5. Challenging the order passed by the respondents, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that by order dated 1/6/1983, the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Field Supervisor and within one month i.e. on 1/7/1983, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Field Supervisor. There was no break in service and therefore, the services rendered by the petitioner from 5/9/1979 up to 30/6/1983 should have been counted for the purposes of calculating the outstanding dues.
6. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondents. The respondents have taken a specific stand and in the return that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Supervisor vide order dated 1/6/1983. He appeared in the recruitment test by mode of direct recruitment for the post of Officer Junior Management Grade-I (OJM I Grade) which was a post of promotion to be filled up by promotion as well as by direct recruitment. The petitioner was selected and was appointed by direct Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONIKA CHOURASIA Signing time: 21-06-2023 10:48:45 3 recruitment to the post of OJM-I (Grade) vide order dated 1/7/1983 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Officer Middle Management Grade Scale II (MMGS II) vide order dated 1/10/2006. It was submitted that the certain misconducts were found to be proved in the departmental enquiry, and accordingly, he was removed from service without any disqualification for future employment vide order dated 22/4/2014.
7. It is submitted that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of OJM-I (Grade) was a direct recruitment and therefore, the respondents have rightly counted the services rendered by the petitioner from 1/7/1983. It is further submitted that it is incorrect to say that the services rendered by the petitioner from 5/9/1979 till 30/6/1983 can be counted. In fact due to fresh appointment on the post of OJM-I (Grade), the earlier services rendered by the petitioner stood seized.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The counsel for the petitioner tried to convince this Court by projecting that the petitioner was in fact promoted to the post of Field Supervisor by order dated 1/7/1983 and accordingly, an attempt was made to read the order dated 1/6/1983 as well as 1/7/1983 jointly. It was the contention of the petitioner that in fact by order dated 1/7/1983, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Field Supervisor and was not given any fresh appointment.
10. Considered the submissions.
11. At the relevant time, the post of Field Supervisor was carrying the pay scale of 740-15-800-20-900-25-1000-30-1180, whereas the pay scale of OJM-I (Grade) was 925-25-1000-30-1150-E.B.-30-1210-40-1450-50-1500. Furthermore,by order dated 1/6/1983, the petitioner was promoted to the post Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONIKA CHOURASIA Signing time: 21-06-2023 10:48:45 4 of Field Supervisor with a probation of two years with a rider that in case, if the services of the petitioner are not found to be satisfactory, by the competent authority, then he shall be liable to be reverted to the original post and refitted into the pay scale on which he would have been, had he not been promoted to the post of Supervisor, whereas the order dated 1/7/1983, specifically provides that with reference to the application filed by the petitioner and the subsequent test and interview, he was given appointment in the service of the bank as officer in the pay scale of 925-25-1000-30-1150-E.B.-30-1210-40-1450-50- 1500.
12. Although, the petitioner has filed rejoinder to the return filed by the respondents but has not filed any reply to paragraph 3(a) of the return.
13. Paragraph 3(a) of the return reads as under :-
3(a). The respondents submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as clerk in the erstwhile Bank in the year 1979 (Annexure P/1). He was promoted to the post of Supervisor in the Bank vide order, dated 01.06.1983 (Annexure P/2). He appeared in the recruitment test by mode of direct recruitment for the post of Officer Junior Management Grade I (OJM I Grade) which was a post of promotion to be filled by promotion as also direct recruitment. He was selected and appointed by direct recruitment to the post in OJM I cadre vide order, dated 01.07.1983 (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Officer Middle Management Grade Scale II (MMGS II) vide order, dated 01.10.2006.
14. The aforesaid contention has not been denied by the petitioner in his rejoinder. It is not the case of the petitioner that the post of OJM-I (Grade) is also known as Field Supervisor. Even otherwise, the different pay scale clearly shows that the post of the Field Supervisor was inferior to the post of OJM-I (Grade). Since, the petitioner was appointed on the post of OJM-I (Grade) by Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONIKA CHOURASIA Signing time: 21-06-2023 10:48:45 5 way of direct recruitment, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no break in the service of the petitioner which started w.e.f.5/9/1979. Since, the petitioner was not promoted to the post of OJM-I (Grade), but he was given a direct recruitment after due process of law, therefore, the respondents did not commit any mistake by not counting the services rendered by the petitioner as Cashier and Field Supervisor.
15. As no case is made out warranting interference accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE m/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MONIKA CHOURASIA Signing time: 21-06-2023 10:48:45