Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

26. After hearing both the parties at great length, petitioner in person and opposite parties represented through a senior counsel and perusing the record. we are of the confirmed view that the opposite parties failed to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the recommendations made by their own senior officers to give the petitioner promotion with effect from 1975 with open mind and in accordance with the practice and policy of the bank itself as well as the settled position of law. Thus, there has been a clear violation of equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. We hodl that after exoneration from the alleged charges, bank ought to have restored the status-quo ante regarding promotion of the petitioner to the post of J.M.G.S.-I (redesignated). It is indeed regrettable that the subordinate official has been treated by his superiors in such a callous manner. We have no doubt whatsoever that the petitioner has been a victim of most unfair and arbitrary action and had been made to suffer for no fault of his for all these years. His agony, therefore, must come to and end without any further delay.

27. In these circumstances, this writ petition succeeds and deserves to be allowed. A writ of mandamus is hereby issued directing the opposite parties to treat the petitioner as having duly passed the written test held on 26-10-1975 and treat him appointed on the redesignated post of J.M.G.S.-I with effect from 1975 from the date any of his junior was so promoted / appointed with all the consequential benefits including further promotions to all the next higher posts. Opposite parties are further directed to implement this order forthwith and in any event not later than one month from the date a certified copy of this judgment and order is produced before them."