K.L. Sehgal vs Chairman, State Bank Of India
1998 Latest Caselaw 150 Del

JUDGMENT

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. For more than a quarter of a century, the petitioner has been approaching this court for reliefs. There was an order against him passed by the respondents and that was challenged in CW No. 888 of 1974. The same was allowed in 01.08.1986 and the State Bank (1st Respondent) preferred an appeal vide LPA No. 89 of 1986. Eight years thereafter the appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. The petitioner approached the respondents for relief in 1995 asking for implementation of the order passed by this court. In the LPA after the petitioner sent petition claiming relief, the respondents filed CM praying for the following relief:

That the order dated 10.03.1995 be modified and the Respondent Sh. K.L. Sehgal be directed to approach and get proper orders from the Income Tax Department;

That an order be passed clarifying that the Respondent is not entitled to pay and allowances uptill Scale-V and that he is not entitled to be appointed to the post of Deputy General Manager as per the directions/judgment of this Hon'ble Court in LPA No. 89 of 1986.

2. This court passed the following order in CM 829 of 1995 on 05.05.1995.

CM No. 829\95

The petitioner and the authorities of the State Bank of India will make an appropriate application before the concerned Income tax Officer or such other officer for the purpose of spreading out the income of the petitioner as per the orders of the Court for payment of arrears of salary etc. and for spreading out the income over various assessment years in the period mentioned in the order. The petitioner will cooperate with the respondents in this behalf.

As far as prayer (b) is concerned, the respondents want to follow the administrative procedure and, therefore, they do not press for that relief.

The application is disposed of accordingly.

3. The petitioner was given the benefits pursuant to the orders and he was also given promotion as per the regulations of the 1st respondent Bank. But his grievance is that the monetary benefits which he would be entitled to consequent to the orders passed by this court has not been given and the promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager has also not been given by the respondents. The petitioner, therefore, has prayed for the following reliefs: To issue an appropriate writ, directions, order or orders directing the respondent to make the payment of pay and allowances for the posts of MM Scale II onwards i.e. for scale III, Scale IV and Scale V w.e.f. January 7, 1979 till the date of payment and to grant interest @ 18% per annum which is a statutory date of interest on the pay and allowances till the date of payment and further Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order conferring benefit of the pay and allowances of the Deputy General Manager w.e.f. 01.11.1994 and to consider and appoint your humble petitioner to the post of Deputy General Manager w.e.f. 01.11.1994 and further to allow the present petition filed by your humble petitioner with costs throughout.

4. The 1st respondent in the counter had taken the stand that as per the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge passing the order on 01.08.1986, the departmental action has been initiated against the petitioner and it is in progress. Learned counsel for the respondents wanted time to file affidavit to show the progress of the case. Once the writ petition has been disposed of in 1986 and the appeal was disposed of on 19.10.1994, priority should have been given by the respondents and should have completed the departmental proceedings and the respondents cannot take its own time in a matter like this.

5. In para 4 of the preliminary objection, the respondents had stated:

In all fairness to the petitioner, the respondent Bank has taken a decision to consider him for promotion. The Respondent Bank would consider the Petitioner for promotion on the basis of the criterion applicable to the candidates of his batch.

6. The respondents had not indicated as to why his case has not been considered and what are the steps taken by the respondents in this regard. The respondents have been given the right to take steps from the date of hearing with all details and the respondents had not taken any care to instruct the counsel to bring to the notice of the details of the case and also consideration of his case for further promotion.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the 1st respondent itself had agreed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion and it shall be done subject to the outcome of the departmental proceedings. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Mynuddin . And with reference to scope of powers of this Court relating to direction for promotion. The learned counsel for the respondents sought to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Fateh Chand Sharma Kaushik and Ors. 1987 (Supp) SCC 469, for the proposition that there can be no direction issued by this court directing the respondents to promote the petitioner.

8. In this case that the petitioner would be entitled to all the reliefs on the strength of the judgment of the learned single and confirmed by the Division Bench on 03.08.1994 cannot be disputed. When the 1st Respondent itself had admitted that his case will be considered, the respondents should have taken steps in accordance with the judgment of this court. The learned counsel for the respondent advances arguments with reference to the post in question. The petitioner should have taken written test and he did not take any written test and therefore, his case cannot be considered. From the narration of facts above, it does not require any argument. It was the 1st respondent who prevented the petitioner from taking any written test and when the petitioner came forward with a grievance, it is no answer to say that the petitioner has not taken the test and, therefore, his case could not be considered for promotion. The situation has been brought out by the 1st respondent itself and therefore, the 1st respondent is bound to consider the case of the petitioner in the way in which it could be considered under the facts and circumstances. Having regard to the admitted facts and circumstances, I am of the view the 1st respondent is bound to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Deputy General Manager. In the service record it is found at page 63 of the record, giving the following details of the performance of the petitioner:

Service sheet (clerical, Cash Department, Subordinate and Metal staffs)

Name in full : K.L. Sehgal (Kharati Lal Sehgal)

Designation : Head Clerk.

Permanent address : K.L. Sehgal C/o Sudershan Bhawan, C-2/1, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi -110033.

Date of birth : 20.12.1936 (also state source of verification)

Identification Mark

Place of Domicile : Delhi/New Delhi Shri K.L. Sehgal.

B-5/346, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi- 53. Academic : Matric qualification.

Position regarding passing institute of Bankers Examination -

First Part In Language Know : English, Hindi & Urdu.

Admitted to the Membership of Pension Fund on Admitted to the Membership of Pension Fund on Rules governing service state useful in-forma;tion (if any)

Second Part in Confirmation No 1.5.1958.

Index No. P.F. 0263990

L.P.C. to be awarded in two years.

Date Appointment Basic Pay Allowances

Dearness other

Head Clerk Rs. 1852.00 1393.40 19.80.

190.00

Report on work and conduct.

325.00

Work Good

Cons Good

31.12.87

Good Good

31.12.88

Excellent Excellent

31.12.89

Excellent Excellent

31.12.90

Do Do

31.12.91

Do Do

31.12.92

Excellent Excellent

31.03.93

Excellent Excellent

31.03.94

Excellent Excellent

Leave fare concession and in two year to be awarded L.P.C. avail w.e.f 6.5.91 to 9.5.91 along with Leave encashment to Mussorie, Haridwar & Dehradoon, for the block period up to October 1987.

This is not disputed by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Deputy General Manager on the basis of the service report and pass orders and if it considers fit for promotion shall give him all monetary benefits. The 1st respondent shall not insist on written test in this behalf regarding relief (a) as prayed for in the petition. The respondents shall also consider the amount payable to the petitioner and pay him all the amounts on the strength of the judgment rendered by this Court on 01.08.1996. The order in this behalf shall be passed by the 1st respondent on or before 30.06.1998. The writ petition is allowed in these terms. There shall be no order as to costs.