Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Kumar Rajak vs M.P. Gramin Bank on 17 October, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
1 W.P.Nos.7213/2021 & 24781/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
WRIT PETITION No.7213 OF 2021
Between:-
MANOJ KUMAR RAJAK, S/O SHRI SHIV
PRASAD RAJAK, AGED ABOUT 41
YEARS, OCCUPATION: EX-EMPLOYEE
OF GRAMIN BANK, R/O 380/25, SHIV
PARK, COLONY MAHADEV, GHAT
ROAD, TEHSIL BAIHAR, DISTRICT
BALAGHAT (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MAYANK CHOUDHARY, ADVOCATE)
AND
M.P. GRAMIN BANK, THROUGH
ITS CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE
204, 2ND FLOOR, C-21, BUSINESS
PARK, C-21 SQUARE, OPP. HOTEL
REDISSON BLU, MR-10, INDORE
(M.P.) 452010.
....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ASHISH SHROTI, ADVOCATE )
2 W.P.Nos.7213/2021 & 24781/2018
WRIT PETITION No.24781 OF 2018
Between:-
1. JAI KUMAR UKEY,
S/O CHARAN DAS UKEY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
BY OCCUPATION-
MESSENGER,
CENTRAL M.P. GRAMIN BANK
BRANCH, UKWA,
DISTRICT BALAGHAT (M.P.).
2. LAKHAN LAL PANCHESHWAR,
S/O LATE SHRI BABU LAL
PANCHESHWAR, AGED 45 YEARS,
BY OCCUPATION- MESSENGER,
BRANCH BIRSA,
DISTRICT BALAGHAT (M.P.)
3. LALIT KUMAR PATEL,
S/O D.L. PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
BY OCCUPATION- MESSENGER,
BRANCH MEHGAON,
DISTRICT BALAGHAT (M.P.)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI MAYANK CHOUDHARY, ADVOCATE)
AND
M.P. GRAMIN BANK, THROUGH
ITS CHAIRMAN, 201, SILVER
ARCADE, 56 DUKAN, NEW
PALASIA, INDORE (M.P.) 452010.
3 W.P.Nos.7213/2021 & 24781/2018
....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ASHISH SHROTI, ADVOCATE )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 22.09.2022
Passed on : 17.10.2022
ORDER
Both the petitions bearing Writ Petition No.7213/2021 & Writ Petition No. 24781/2018 involve same question of law based on similar factual matrix and, therefore, are being decided by this common order.
2. W.P. No.7213/2021 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assails legality and validity of the letter dated 01.01.2021 (Annexure-P/22) issued by the respondent whereby petitioner has been informed that he is not entitled to be regularized in the service of respondent for not having completed ten years of requisite service on the cut off date i.e. 10.04.2006.
3. W.P. No.24781/2018 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the legality and validity of the order dated 29.01.2018 (Annexure-P/8, P/9 & P/10), issued separately by the respondent, whereby petitioners have been informed that they are not entitled to be regularized in the service of respondent as the post in question did not exist and also that neither any advertisement was issued nor names were invited from Employment Exchange prior to engagement/appointment of petitioners.
4. Writ Petition No.7213/2021 is the fourth round of litigation of petitioner therein after availing the first round in the shape of Writ Petition No.6556/2012 (Dilip Kumar Rajak and 21 others Vs. Satpura Narmada 4 W.P.Nos.7213/2021 & 24781/2018 Kshetriya Gramin Bank), second round in the shape of Con No.2592/2017 (Hansraj Yadav and others Vs. Vivek Kumar) and the third round in shape of Review Petition No.1071/2020 (M.P. Gramin Bank Vs. Bansraj Yadav).
5. W.P. No.24781/2018 is third round of litigation of petitioners therein after availing the first round in shape of connected writ petitions [Writ Petition No.6740/2011 (Jai Kumar Ukey Vs. Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank), W.P. No.6737/2011 (Lakhanlal Pancheshwar Vs. Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank) and W.P. No.6742/2011 (Lalit Kumar Patel Vs. Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank)] and second round in the shape of Writ Petition No.6556/2012 (Dilip Kumar Rajak and 21 others Vs. Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank).
6. The aforesaid three petitions i.e. [Writ Petition No.6556/2012, Con No.2592/2017 and Review Petition No.1071/2020] were decided by final order in the following terms:
W.P. No.6556/2012 (Dilip Kumar Rajak and 21 others Vs. Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank) decided on 02.11.2016:
"It has been brought to the notice of this Court that some of the employees have directly approached to the CGIT where appropriate relief has been granted to them. However, it would not debar this Court to entertain these petitions because the orders impugned have been passed in cyclostyle manner merely by changing the number of writ petition and the name of the petitioners. As the directions have been issued by this Court to consider the case of the petitioners concerned in the context of Umadevi (supra), therefore, it is the duty of the respondent Bank to pass a reasoned order and record the finding as to why the petitioners are not entitled to get the said benefit. It is to further observed that 5 W.P.Nos.7213/2021 & 24781/2018 as per the order passed by this Court a policy has been formulated which has not been brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, after supplying copy of the said policy to the petitioners the respondent Bank would be at liberty to pass the order afresh recording the finding or assigning the reasons as to why they are not entitled to take recourse of law as per the order of this Court. As number of other employees have already taken recourse of law by approaching CGIT, therefore, at this stage it is directed that in case the claim of the petitioner is rejected by the Bank then at the subsequent stage the petitioners would be at liberty to approach CGIT by following the prescribed procedure against the order which is passed afresh in view of the directions issued by this Court.
In view of the aforesaid, these petition stands disposed of. The orders impugned Annexure-P/11 stand quashed. It is directed that till decision in the matter by the Bank the interim order passed by this Court shall remain in operation and thereafter for a period of four weeks. During that period, the petitioners would be at liberty to take recourse of law.
With the aforesaid, writ petitions allowed and disposed of."
[Emphasis Supplied] Conc No.2592/2017 (Hansraj Yadav & Ors. Vs. Vivek Kumar) decided on 09.10.2020:
"14. It is also an admitted position that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6556/2012 has not been further assailed by any of the parties, therefore, compliance of the said order is the requirement of the law. Therefore, at this juncture in view of the foregone discussion, instead of holding the conduct of the respondent as contemptuous though they have made incorrect statement in the Court, I deem it fit to dispose of this contempt petition with a direction to the respondent-Bank to consider the claim of the 6 W.P.Nos.7213/2021 & 24781/2018 petitioners for regularization in view of the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Umadevi (supra). It is further directed that the petitioners since have completed more than 10 years of service, the respondent Bank can consider the claim for regularization of their services. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order.
15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this contempt petition is disposed of."
Review Petition No.1071/2020 (M.P. Gramin Bank Vs. Hansraj Yadav & others) decided on 19.11.2020:
"5. I find force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank as the situation has already been clarified laying down the cut-off date for determining the ten years of service by the Supreme Court in the case of M.L. Kesri (supra), therefore, the order passed by this Court in aforesaid contempt petition needs to be modified and it is accordingly modified that the claim of the respondents (petitioners therein) for regularization shall be considered by the petitioner/Bank in the light of the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the case Umadevi (supra).
6. Hence, the observation regarding completion of service of ten years period by the respondents (petitioner therein) is hereby omitted from the order dated 09.10.2020 passed in Conc. No.2592/2017. Thus, the order passed in the aforesaid contempt petition is modified accordingly.
7. Resultantly, the review petition filed by the petitioner/Bank stands allowed to the above extent."
7. Pursuant to the directions of this Court passed in the earlier round of litigation in W.P. No.6556/2012 on 02.11.2016 and the subsequent directions passed in the contempt as well as review petition (supra), the respondent-Bank 7 W.P.Nos.7213/2021 & 24781/2018 passed the impugned orders dated 01.01.2021 & 29.01.2018 rejecting the claim of petitioners as aforesaid.
8. Petitioners have challenged the aforesaid impugned orders dated 01.01.2021 & 29.01.2018 by filing the present petitions.
9. After hearing learned counsel for rival parties on the question of admission, this Court cannot turn a blind eye towards the liberty that was afforded to the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation i.e. 02.11.2016 in Writ Petition No.6556/2012, which is evident from the following extract of the said order:
".................As number of other employees have already taken recourse of law by approaching CGIT, therefore, at this stage it is directed that in case the claim of the petitioner is rejected by the Bank then at the subsequent stage the petitioners would be at liberty to approach CGIT by following the prescribed procedure against the order which is passed afresh in view of the directions issued by this Court."
[Emphasis Supplied]
10. In the light of aforesaid liberty extended to the petitioners and also the fact that similarly placed employees have already approached CGIT, this Court refrains from entering into merits of the matter.
11. Once petitioners were party in Writ Petition No.6556/2012 and were extended the liberty, it would be in the fitness of things and also for the sake of clarity that the said liberty be availed by approaching the appropriate Bench of CGIT which can also deal with disputed questions of fact which ought not to be gone into in writ jurisdiction.
8 W.P.Nos.7213/2021 & 24781/201812. Consequent to the above, this Court declines interference and relegate the petitioners to avail remedy before CGIT.
13. In view of the decision taken as mentioned above, this Court need not enter into the prolixity of considering the final written arguments on behalf of petitioners.
14. Consequently, this Court declines interference and dismisses the petitions with aforesaid liberty, which if availed within 60 days from today shall be dealt with on merits without being rejected on limitation alone.
No cost.
(SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE Biswal Digitally signed by SHIBA NARAYAN BISWAL Date: 2022.10.17 16:56:15 +05'30'