The Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank vs Tuplal Baitha
2024 Latest Caselaw 2608 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank vs Tuplal Baitha on 4 March, 2024

Author: Navneet Kumar

Bench: Navneet Kumar

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
                       L.P.A No. 506 of 2023
1. The Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, having its Head Office at Rajendra
Place, 5, Main Road, Ranchi, PO- GPO Ranchi, PS-Chutiya, District-Ranchi,
At present 3rd Floor Zila Parishad Office Premises, Kutchery Chowk, PO-
GPO, PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand, through its Chairman
2. General Manager, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, at Rajendra Place, 5,
Main Road, Ranchi, PO-GPO Ranchi, PS-Chutia, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand,
at present 3rd Floor, Zila Parishad Office Premises, Kutchery Chowk, PO-
GPO, PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. The Senior Manager (Personnel), Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Now Jharkhand
Rajya Gramin Bank. Regional Office, Giridih, having its office at-Kalimanda
Road, Barganda, near Vishwanath Temple, Giridih, PS-Giridih (T), PO &
District-Giridih, Jharkhand.
4. Branch Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Now Jharkhand Rajya Gramin
Bank, Giridih Branch, Giridih, having its office at-Bargand Road, PS-Giridih
(T), PO & District-Giridih, Jharkhand
5. Branch Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Now Jharkhand Rajya Gramin
Bank, Tara Tand Branch, having its office at Tara Tand, PO & PS-Tara Tand,
District-Giridih, Jharkhand
6. Branch Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Now Jharkhand Rajya Gramin
Bank, Kathara Branch, PO-Kathara, PS-Bokaro Thermal, District-Bokaro,
Jharkhand
7. Branch Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Now Jharkhand Rajya Gramin
Bank, Dhaiya Branch, Dhanbad, PO-IMS, PS-Tand, District-Dhanbad,
Jharkhand                                                 ... ... Appellants
                                Versus
1. Tuplal Baitha, s/o late Jamuna Baitha, aged-54 years, r/o Arari, PO-Janta
Jaridih, PS-Birni, District-Giridih, presently posted as Office Attendant,
Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, Giridih, PS-Giridih (T), PO & District-
Giridih, Jharkhand
2. Ishwari Prasad, s/o late Dayal Prasad, aged-60 years, r/o Village-
Bishwashdih, PO-Gadi Sri Ram Pur, PS-Giridih (M), District-Giridih,
presently posted as Office Attendant, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank Tara
Tand Branch, Tara Tand, PO & PS-Tara Tand & District-Giridih, Jharkhand
3. Tulsi Prasad Keshri, s/o Keshri Saw, aged-50 years, r/o-Village-Chatro
Chatti, PO & PS-Chatro Chatti, District-Bokaro, presently posted as Office
Attendant, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, Kathara Branch, PO-Kathara, PS-
Bokaro Thermal, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand
4. Sukhdeo Mahto, s/o late Madho Mahto, aged-50 years, r/o Village-Band
Kharo, PO-Band Kharo, PS-Suriya, District-Giridih, presently posted as
Office Attendant, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, Dhaiya Branch, Dhanbad,
PO-IMS, PS & District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand                ... ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Appellants : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate Miss Sushmita Kuamri & Asfia Sultana, Advocates

4th March 2024 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J

The Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank is aggrieved by the writ Court's direction to consider grant of notional benefits to the respondents.

2. Tuplal Baitha, Ishwari Prasad, Tulsi Prasad Keshri and Sukhdeo Mahto claiming that they were engaged around the year 1990 by the Gramin Bank as daily wages messengers continued to render their services without any break. The respondents claimed that a panel of 41 daily wages messengers/sepoy was prepared for regularization after following the due process of interview. However, ignoring seven persons who were below Kameshwar Prasad Bihari and others in the merit list those persons were appointed and therefore the aggrieved party approached the High Court in CWJC No. 2643 of 1992(R). This is not in dispute that the writ Court issued a direction to regularize/absorb Kameshwar Prasad Bihari and others who had approached the writ Court. This is also a matter of record that the order dated 13th August 1999 passed in CWJC No. 2643 of 1992 (R) was affirmed by the Letters Patent Court vide order dated 10 th May 2010 in L.P.A No. 360 of 1999 (R). The writ Court in CWJC No. 2643 of 1992(R) held as under:

"10. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to regularise/absorb the petitioners, immediately, and to provide the such benefit from the date they became so eligible, and/or from the date the persons below them in the panel were so regularised. However, on such regularisation/absorption, through the petitioners will be entitled for all the benefits like fixation of pay, seniority etc. but will not get arrears of salary.

Appropriate order in this respect be issued on an early date, but not later than a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy this order.

11. The writ petition is allowed, with the aforesaid observations/directions. There shall be no order as to costs."

3. A Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A No. 360 of 1999(R) upheld the writ Court's order and held as under:

"11. Annexure-3 to the writ petition is a document dated 16.7.1992 which is subsequent to the confirmation of panel on 22.01.1992. This document is an agreement between workers' union and the Bank. The workmen before us were out of employment at that time and are therefore third parties in relation to this agreement. Thus this subsequent agreement cannot form a valid legal basis for scrapping the panel already prepared and confirmed unless there was some illegality in preparation of the panel. While empanelment for appointment or regularisation by itself may not give a vested right to appointment/regularization, but it does give rise to legitimate expectation of being considered for the appointment on the basis of that select list unless there is something found wrong with the selection. When vacancies exist and a select list has been properly and legally

prepared for filing up those vacancies, it cannot be whimsically scrapped by the Bank unless the Bank is able to show that the selection was vitiated for any valid reason.

12. In these circumstances, we do not find any force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The interim order is vacated. The appellant Bank will comply with the order of the learned Single Judge, effective from the date directed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order."

4. Notwithstanding that, the respondents were not regularized in service and therefore they approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4345 of 2011, which was heard and disposed of in terms of the order dated 9 th November 2011 with a direction to the Gramin Bank to treat the writ petition as their representation and decide the claim. Now by virtue of the aforesaid order, the respondents were absorbed in service but were denied the benefit of pay fixation and seniority by virtue of the order passed in C.W.J.C No. 2643 of 1992 (R). Therefore, they again moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1551 of 2017 and the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to file a fresh representation in terms of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6057 of 2016. In compliance thereof, the appellant-Gramin Bank examined their representation but rejected the claim of the respondents by the order dated 7th December 2020.

5. Therefore, the respondents filed W.P.(S) No. 1598 of 2021 for the following reliefs:

"I) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Reasoned Order dated 7.12.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 as contained in Annexure-10 of this writ application, whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioners for grant of notional fitment of pay scales and monetary/consequential benefits at par with other similarly situated employees (Kameshwar Bihari & Ors.), has been rejected without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that none-

consideration of the ratio of principles of law laid down in the order dated 13.08.1999 passed in C.W.J.C No. 2643 of 1992 (R) (Kameshwar Bihari & Ors.- vs-Giridih Khetriya Gramin Bank & Ors.) read with order dated 10.05.2010 passed in L.P.A No. 360 of 1999 (R) vide Annexure-3 amounts discriminatory and illegal;

ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the regularization/absorption of the portioners with consequential benefits at par with other similarly situated persons (Kameshwar Bihari & Ors.), who has been granted benefits in terms order dated 13.8.1999 passed in C.W.J.C 2643 of 1992(R) (Kameshwar Bihari & Ors.-vs- Giridih Khetriya Gramin Bank & Ors.) (vide Annexure-1) read with order dated 10.5.2010 passed in L.P.A No. 360 of 1999 (R) vide Annexure-3 and also in terms of Office Order under Reference No. HO/JGB/PERS/14-15/171 dated 30.5.2014, by which the basic pay of Office Attendant Sri Kakeshwar Prasad Bihari has been fixed in the line with direction of the this Hon'ble Court, which is evident from the Letter of respondent No.3, vide Ref. No. RO/GRD/PERS:VKS : 2014-15 : 546 dated 23.7.2014 as contained in Annexure-6 of this writ application;

iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the

respondents to forthwith consider the case of the petitioners for granting notional fitment of pay scales with retrospective date, i.e. 16.8.1992 and payment of arrears from their date of joining at par with said Kameshwar Prasad Bihari in the facts and circumstances of this case;

And/or For the issuance of any other writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions as to Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."

6. The writ Court having recorded that the respondents who are seeking parity with Kameshwar Prasad Bihari as to grant of notional benefits for their past services interfered with the order dated 7 th December 2020 and issued a direction in respect thereof to the General Manager of the Gramin Bank. The writ Court has issued the following direction:

"8. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the view that impugned order dated 07.12.2020, passed by the respondent no. 2 is not tenable in the eyes of law and hence fit to be quashed and set aside. Resultantly the same is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioners for grant of notional benefits from the date of their initial appointment within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and grant them consequential benefits."

7. For issuing the aforesaid direction to the Gramin Bank, the writ Court referred to "State of U.P v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava" (2015) 1 SCC 347 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

"22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.

22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all

similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject- matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India [K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 226] ). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."

8. Mr. A. Allam, the learned senior counsel for the Gramin Bank submits that pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 4345 of 2011 the respondents were given fresh appointment through appointment letter dated 2nd July 2012 and these respondents are not entitled for any benefit on account of their past services. The Gramin Bank has also put forth a plea that the panel was scraped as it was not prepared in accordance with guidelines issued by the appellants.

9. As it would appear from the writ Court's order, the Gramin Bank once again picked up the plea that the panel was scraped and therefore no benefit would accrue to the respondent-employee. This plea was already rejected by the writ Court in the proceedings of CWJC No. 2643 of 1992 (R) and the decision thereon was affirmed in L.P.A No. 360 of 1999 (R). Quite apparently, it was improper on the part of the Gramin Bank to put forth the plea which was already rejected by this Court. Mr. A. Allam, the learned senior counsel for the Gramin Bank would however submit that the writ petition which was filed about a decade after the respondents were appointed was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

10. In the counter-affidavit filed before the writ Court, the Gramin Bank admitted that the respondents approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1551 of 2017 which was disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6057 of 2016 but no plea as regards the writ petition being filed after inordinate delay or laches on the part of the respondents was specifically taken by the Gramin Bank. This seems to be the reason, the writ Court in the order dated 17th July 2023 did not refer to any such plea raised on behalf of the Gramin Bank. Now this is too well-settled a law that in appeal a plea of delay and laches cannot be raised for the first time by the appellants to challenge the order passed by the writ Court [refer, "State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra

Metallics Ltd. (2023) 10 SCC 634"].

11. While so, we do not find any reason to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, L.P.A No. 506 of 2023 is dismissed.

12. I.A No. 8522 of 2023 is dismissed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)

(Navneet Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 4th March 2024 Amit N.A.F.R