Sobran Mahto vs Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 9127 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sobran Mahto vs Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank on 10 September, 2024

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        W.P.(S) No. 4245 of 2023
Sobran Mahto, aged about 51 years, son of late Khedu Mahto, Permanent
resident of village-Cheliyatanr, PO Konardam, PS-Gomia, District-Bokaro,
Jharkhand-825315. Presently posted as Office Assistant after his
promotion at Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank Kanjkiro Branch, PO-
Kanjkiro Via Bokaro Thermal, PS-Penk Narayanpur, District-Bokaro,
Jharkhand-829107                                     ... ... Petitioner
                                 Versus
1.Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, Head Office Ranchi through its
Chairman having its office at Market Complex 3rd Floor Zila Parishad
Office Premises, Kutchery Road Ranchi, PO-GPO, PS-Sadar, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001
2. General Manager, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, Head Office Ranchi
having its office at Market Complex 3rd Floor Zila Parishad Office
Premises, Kutchery Road Ranchi, PO-GPO, PS-Sadar, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand-834001
3. Regional Manager, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, Giridih Region,
having its office at Kalimanda Road Barganda, nearby Vishwanath Temple,
PO & PS-Giridih, District-Giridih, Jharkhand, PIN-815301
4. Branch Manager, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, Nawagarh Chatti
Branch, PO-Nawagarh Chatti, PS-Rajdhanwar, District-Giridih, Jharkhand
                                                     ... ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner         : Mr. Sahadeo Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents        : Mr. Abdul Allam, Sr. Advocate
                             Mr. Faisal Allam, Advocate
                             Ms. Asfia Sultana, Advocate
                             Ms. Sushmita Kumari, Advocate
                               --------

th Order No. 10 /Dated: 10 September 2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting-aside the reasoned order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the respondent no.2 pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6057 of 2016.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ application has already been decided in

favour of the co-employees by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1598 of 2021 titled "Tuplal Baitha & Ors. v. The Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, Ranchi & Ors." vide order dated 17.07.2023. As such, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar treatment may be granted to this petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents though opposes the prayer made in the instant writ application but could not dispute the fact that the case of "Tuplal Baitha & Ors." (supra) is same and similar. He further submits that if the case of this petitioner will be found same and similar; then similar benefit will be given to the petitioner.

5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the respondent no.2 to treat this writ application as representation of the petitioner and if the case of this petitioner is same with that of Tuplal Baitha and other co-employees; then similar benefits be given to this petitioner also. It goes without saying that if there would be any confusion, respondent no.2 would ask the petitioner to appear before him to satisfy him on the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. The petitioner would also be at liberty to submit the copy of the entire record of this writ application to the respondent no.2 as early as possible for convenience. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent no.2 within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6. The instant writ application stands disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amit