Bombay High Court
Mahadeo S/O Dajiba Dodke vs Chairman And M.D. Bank Of ... on 7 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
J-wp5847.11.odt 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.5847 OF 2011
Mahadeo s/o. Dajiba Dodke,
Aged about 64 years,
Occupation : --
R/o. Mahabank Colony, Sardar Patel Ward,
Warora, District : Chandrapur. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. Chairman And Managing Director
Bank of Maharashtra
(Government of India Undertakings)
1501, Lokmangal Central Office
Shiwaji Nagar, Pune-411 005.
2. The General Manager,
Bank of Maharashtra,
1501, Lokmangal Central Office
Shiwaji Nagar, Pune-411 005.
3. Appellate Authority And General
Manager IR & H.R.D.
Personal Department, Central Office,
1501, Lokmangal Central Office
Shiwaji Nagar, Pune-411 005.
4. Chief Manager Disciplinary Matters
Bank of Maharashtra,
Central Office, 1501, Lokmangal Central Office
Shiwaji Nagar, Pune-411 005.
Petition dismissed
against respndent 5. Shri A.M. Kshirsagar,
No.5 vide Disciplinary Authority And Regional
Registrar (J) order Manager, Chandrapur Region,
dt.13.11.2013.
Bank of Maharashtra, Chandrapur,
District : Chandrapur.
::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2017 00:47:17 :::
J-wp5847.11.odt 2/8
6. Shri S.W. Godbole,
Enquiry Officer, Regional Office,
Bank of Maharashtra,
Sitabuldi, Nagpur. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri P.P. Dhok, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 & 6.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 7 th
MARCH, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order
dated 26.6.2002, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service of the
respondent-Bank. The petitioner seeks the monetary benefits for the
period during which the petitioner was out of service, from 26.6.2002 till
he attained the age of superannuation on 31.8.2006. The petitioner has
also sought deemed date promotion to the post of Junior Manager
Grade-I.
The petitioner claims to belong to Scheduled Tribes and had
secured the employment with the respondent-Bank on the post of clerk
on 27.6.1977, on the basis of his claim of belonging to 'Mana' Scheduled
Tribe. The caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny
Committee for verification. The Scrutiny Committee, invalidated the
J-wp5847.11.odt 3/8
caste claim of the petitioner by the order dated 13.3.1996. On
invalidation of the caste claim, the respondent-Bank initiated a
departmental enquiry against the petitioner and after the charge of
producing a false caste certificate while seeking employment was proved
against the petitioner, he was compulsorily retired from service by the
order dated 26.6.2002. In the meanwhile, the writ petition filed by the
petitioner against the order of the scrutiny committee had been dismissed
by the High Court on 29.8.2000. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by the
order dated 16.1.2008 partly allowed the petition filed by the petitioner
and remanded the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the
caste claim of the petitioner afresh, on merits. By an order dated
8.5.2008, the Scrutiny Committee validated the caste claim of the
petitioner. After the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service on
26.6.2002, the petitioner had filed writ petition No.2488/2003
challenging the said order. The said petition was, however, disposed of
after observing that as the matter was pending before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of the caste claim of the petitioner, if a
favourable order is passed in favour of the petitioner, it would be open
for the petitioner to seek an appropriate order in the matter of his
services from the respondent-Bank and if the petitioner is still aggrieved,
it would be open for the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings against
the Bank. On 31.8.2006, the petitioner stood retired on attaining the age
J-wp5847.11.odt 4/8
of superannuation. After the Scrutiny Committee validated the caste
claim of the petitioner on 8.5.2008, the respondent-Bank passed an
order on 28.3.2009 informing the petitioner that :
(a) Your service till 31.8.2006 will be
considered notionally for calculation of Gratuity & Pension
only.
(b) You will be entitled for revised pension
w.e.f. 1.9.2006 considering your notional service upto
31.8.2006 as active service & after granting you appropriate
increments i.e. considering has last drawn basic as
Rs.15,450 (since his 4th stagnation increment as per VII th
Bi-partite settlement falls on 1.11.2005).
(c) The revised pension will be paid to you
from 1.9.2006. FM & A Deptt. Central Officer, Pune has
already issued necessary instructions in this regard vide their
Letter No.AXI/FM & A/ BEP/ dt.17.3.2009. The copy of said
letter is enclosed for your information please.
(d) You will be entitled for any back wages.
Pension already paid to you from 29.6.2002 from
31.8.2006 will not be recovered from you no
arrears/difference of pension for the period for which you
were out of service i.e. from 29.6.2002 from 31.8.2006 are
payable to you.
(e) You are entitled for Gratuity, considering
the period for which you were out of service as a continuous
service i.e. for the period from 29.6.2002 to 31.8.2006
considering notional basic pay as Rs.15,450/-. A cheque
dated 20.3.2009 for Rs.1,26,354/. (Rs. One Lac Twenty Six
Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Four Only) fvg. Your good
selves towards difference of Gratuity payable to you is
enclosed."
Since the petitioner was not granted the salary for the period
from 26.6.2002 till the date of his retirement on 31.8.2006, the
petitioner has filed the instant petition making the prayers that are
J-wp5847.11.odt 5/8
referred, to at the outset.
Shri P.P. Dhok, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that if the order of the disciplinary authority dated 26.6.2002
is set aside, the petitioner would be entitled to all other consequential
benefits including deemed date of promotion to the post of Junior
Manager Grade-I as also the arrears of salary for the period from
26.6.2002 till 31.8.2006. It is submitted that the petitioner would also
be entitled to the difference of salary due to grant of deemed date
promotion. It is submitted that the petitioner was compulsorily retired
from service on the ground that he had submitted a false certificate and
since the caste claim of the petitioner is validated by the Scrutiny
Committee on 8.5.2008, the petitioner would be entitled to all the
consequential benefits.
Shri S.S. Ghate, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1
to 4 & 6 has denied the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that after
the petitioner's caste claim was validated on 8.5.2008, every benefit to
which the petitioner could have been legally entitled was granted to him
by the order dated 28.3.2009. It is submitted that after seeking the
opinion of the Indian Bank Association, similar relief was granted in
favour of several other employees of the Bank, whose services were
initially terminated due to the invalidation of the caste claim It is
submitted that petitioner has admittedly not worked from 26.6.2002 till
J-wp5847.11.odt 6/8
31.8.2006 and hence his claim for arrears of salary for the said period is
liable to be rejected. It is submitted that the petitioner was held to be
eligible to the considered for promotion on 24.8.2001 but the petitioner
had failed in the written test. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot
seek his promotion on the post of Junior Manager Grade-I after he has
failed in the written test.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that
the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed. The petitioner is
granted almost every benefit that could have been granted to the
petitioner including gratuity, pension, revised pension as well as
increments. All the monetary benefits were paid to the petitioner after
the petitioner's caste claim was validated on 8.5.2008 and an order was
passed by the respondent bank providing for the benefits to the petitioner
on 28.3.2009. The petitioner cannot claim deemed date of promotion to
the post of Junior Manager Grade-I. When a written test was conducted
for considering the fitness of the employees for promotion, the petitioner
failed in written test.
The petitioner would not be entitled to the arrears of salary
for the period from 26.6.2002 till 31.8.2006 on the principle of "no work
no pay". This is not a case where the respondent- Bank had committed
any error in compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service on
26.6.2002. The said order was based on a report of the enquiry officer in
J-wp5847.11.odt 7/8
the disciplinary proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner in
view of the invalidation of his caste claim by the Scrutiny Committee on
13.3.1996. The writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order of
the Scrutiny Committee was dismissed by this Court and at the relevant
time i.e. on 26.6.2002, the matter was pending before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The order of the Scrutiny Committee as well as the High
Court had gone against the petitioner and in the departmental
proceedings also it was held that the charge of filing a false certificate for
securing employment was proved against the petitioner. In the
circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the respondent-Bank
committed any error in compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service,
by the order dated 26.6.2002. After the petitioner's caste claim was
validated on 8.5.2008 on remand of the matter to the scrutiny
Committee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent-Bank, after
taking the opinion of the Indian Bank Association rightly granted all the
possible benefits in favour of the petitioner, vide order dated 28.3.2009.
The petitioner has got the benefits of increments, pension, revised
pension and the gratuity. Only arrears of salary are not paid for the
period during which the petitioner was out of service. In the
circumstances, of the case, it cannot be said that the respondent-Bank
committed any error in not paying the arrears of salary to the petitioner
for the period during which the petitioner was out of service. At the
J-wp5847.11.odt 8/8
relevant time, when the order of compulsorily retiring the petitioner from
service was passed, it cannot be said that the action on the part of the
Bank of taking a penal action against the petitioner was bad in law, as
the action of the respondent-Bank was supported by the order of the
scrutiny committee invaliding the caste claim of the petitioner as also the
order of the High Court dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner.
We are not inclined to grant the relief claimed by the petitioner as in our
view, the Bank has justly granted all the benefits that could have been
possibly granted to the petitioner by the order dated 28.3.2009.
Since, we do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner,
the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
okMksns
