S Nagaraj S/O B Srinivasa Rao vs State Bank Of Mysore on 5 January, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

S Nagaraj S/O B Srinivasa Rao vs State Bank Of Mysore on 5 January, 2009

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 5*" DAY OF JANIIARE,  A I   ,  

BEFORE:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTiC!?,..A1\i}€IN1)  I 7 I

WRIT PETITION No.3353f9 03 200::

BETWEEN:

S.Naga:raj,S7    _  - 
Sic B.Srinivas:II _ _    
Deputy Manager  '   «-
AnOITi»r,ef'iII  
Managémem; _ - '

at State Bank o1'My:aIm'I'   

Region -- 4; 'Oﬁiae »  

Hubli, .Since  and  A "

Residing at No. 31%.! A

 .  9% Iv1ain?~.Road, II cross' '
7  'Ha3I111I1agIfhan_agvar
  PETITIONER

(B§2'Shri__._*M.  Przrsanna, Advocate for Sbri. P. S. Rajagopal and

'  Sfate Bank szaf Mysore

I V'  body constituted under the
V' Siaic Bank of India (Subsidimy

Banks) Act, 1959 by its



Managing Director
Head Oﬁice, State Bank of
Mysore Building, K. G. Road

Bangalore-560 009    

(By Shri. S. G. Bhal, Advocate)   

#$#$# e

This was: Petition is filednnder Axsieies .,m... .

Constitution of India, praying to  the t)rder.ﬁ.te(iV3'1§'l0.2001V'
passed by the respondent -- Bank"vidc.._»Ann£§:m:~e N fiand Order

dated 4.2.2002 passed b}"*~.t_he re§;ioné$entee.vide R and further direct the respunden-£11.: (¢eI11§si§iei*--tiie Lase of the petitioner for promotion to the higher from on which his Juniors were pn)sm)§eti giant u0n::ger§1uenlial benefits of pmmotion, backtvﬁges, eéi:1s€~q£ientiaI a:"rea.rs of salary an the basis of such txJnsiaiera!.i43:nv- » and reserved and coming on fer ;;sron§>uncex:;e_x_1t.of this day, the Court delivered the followirngte ._ V = _. -


eeeknzn

 V'  ._     for the 

  as folluwst

pheéiitioner is said it: have joined the services of the

- Bank. as 22 Clerk and 'is said to have xisen E0 the post ofﬂlfieer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I. In the year 1980, . " whee he was working as 3-, manager uf Kamagere Branch of the *3':

ﬂ}at buck«wages maid bc paid rmm 23.1.1933. The 'inétrucﬁons Wﬂftt to pay the fuiiowing consequential 'V -- béfisﬁtsr Bank, dizeciplinary proceedings came to be ;%13;m.,; culminated in an order dated I_Q88,_.' dismissed form the services of the ':u§§s also mjeclad. The ordcr of Vwégy bf writ petition befun: {his pgurt same was allowed by an order dated' was directed to be reinslategf, ﬁilailenged by way 91' an aPP'-'»ai in V The in" Ihai, the payment of saiary from 27.1.193é'1§% 'set aside. Thercaﬂcr, by an gréqf, was directed to report for my aekiGa;ba;g;; :;g~{1a%t10.1993.

II1 §'Erucl:ig.3r1a%.V'wert: issued by {he Head 0336:: of thc Bank same rwsoning, was not eligible for mid*acad&:ia.§§'. _ I_,ré£i1__$ﬁ3r allowance and for medical aid, leave fan: con1;t::s:;i.(i:1,vVl:'aa§j1c trzgﬁcxi.

concession, privilcgc leave, sick leavé.1and-caé3ué15.lea\5c, not at all working ii}! the date 0§ r'c:ig';stal2em't::nt., ' A A

3. The peijliuncr way of a wrii petilion in its order dated l9.7.200l, the matter for a keeping in viuw the obsewéiiun-5*' in the case of C.0Arnmgmn and orbs}: 1991 suppl.(2) sec 199 and . iheV_i3$:§:}s¥;1ﬂ:ai§onV'£if--$.£3i%«siun B.-mh uf this Court in 1:3. Tyagi v.

2\'aﬁi;f!r3z§§ i:é:ic£iIe Corporation Lirniiea', WA 91 85.31996 dated 1331999. L' % V " I claims of the petititmer, howevcr, were rejected except

-- that unveiling aﬂuwanoe fmm Bangaluw to Gulhma be " W1§:imbux*sed, by his ltstler dated 2.11.2001. I! is this which is undcr challesnge.

4. The Counsel for the petitioner wotdd submit settled position of law that when an order of asides and when the employee is ieinstatedghe i as though he has been in 0Untii'iﬁ1§.)US and':étsv,.tIjiou;gh order of penalty never existed fur the various eoneessiuns it Office clearly having directed petitioner, by its order dated having been granted these Counsel would submit that the ciai1i*x._t'o"r: without giving any reason and the denial of medﬁeaiwiiid and leave fare euncession was that it was available out); to serving was denied on the ground that provisions of th'eiAuet dis payment of bonus. While granting privilege "'-Lieave fur the period 1983 to 1993, the beneﬁt of sick leave , s:;d'»-eesuai leave was denied. Pmmution was denied on the " 3-niund that pmmetions are merit-based and that the petitioner has A. not pmved that he was more merituﬁous than his juniors. Cash 3 8 informed with reason as admitted by the petitioner himself and the same cannot be said to be illegal} or untenable. The veryrdecision cited by the petitioner in the case of ihal if a person is exonerated of allegations o_f'ii§1'is£ioni3uei.Vor.iii" » _ criminal pmeeedirrgs, and if found susrgabser air prom§e;ggnr;i%er,%ga¢h an employee is to be given pmrrioiioxi. Iii iﬁere is' i no serious dispute that vibe peli&io13§r'--}i£t3_ never' any written examination to of his juniors and therefore, the for .rioiTVflenable.

6. iaﬁystvi and flora the sequence of events riz:rr:i1ed'hereingitx1§?e,.__ Vviizere is no reazowuning forthcoming in the l'i'a.V\ziii11gi§' forgone its own order at Annexurew " cle_ef;'1y_--.s£a!ing asifoiiows :-

'ggiil be in orderfor you to eﬂéctpayment V A r.Tifr',Vff_I}lfi-5%V.if(}ll0¥§#i?Ig corisaguentiai beneﬁts to the iciatl 1' 1) Medical Aid for the period ﬁwrvm August 1980 to the date of reinstatement G

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court