P.J.Paul vs State Bank Of India And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2192 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.18313 OF 2011(L)


PETITIONER:

               P.J.PAUL, DEPUTY MANAGER - ACCOUNTS
               OFFICIATING),STATE BANK OF INDIA,
               KAIPUZHA BRANCH,, KOTTAYAM-686602

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
               SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN
               SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH
               SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
               CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,LOCAL HEAD OFFICE,,
               THAMPANOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      2        THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
               (ADMINISTRATION),STATE BANK OF INDIA,LOCAL HEAD,
               OFFICE,THAMPANOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      3        THE CHIEF MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION)
               STATE BANK OF INDIA,REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE,,
               THIRUNAKKARA,KOTTAYAM-686001.

               R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH
               R1-3 BY SRI.P.GOPAL, SC, SBI

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD         ON
20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 18313/11
                                    2


                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that when this Writ

Petition was filed in the year 2011, he was a

Graduate Special Assistant working under the

1st respondent-Bank and that he was given an

in-cadre promotion as Cash Officer, with

effect from 01.10.2005. He says that on such

promotion being granted to him, as is evident

from Ext.P2, he took charge from the Deputy

Manager (Cash) and that he was officiating in

such post as a Deputy Manager (Accounts),

which is clear from Exts.P2 and P4.

2. The petitioner says that because of

his in-cadre promotion through Ext.P2, he was

denied promotion as a Special Senior Assistant

with an allowance of Rs.3,500/- and was given

regular promotion in Junior Management Grade

(JMG) scale I with effect from 12.08.2009, and

was granted officiating allowance after

12.08.2009 but denied the scale of pay in the WPC 18313/11

JMG or even officiating allowance from

01.10.2005.

3. The petitioner says that he,

therefore, made his claim for the afore

benefits through Ext.P7, but that it has been

rejected through Ext.P8 without assigning any

reason, except saying that his request cannot

be considered. He, therefore, prays that

Ext.P8 be set aside and he be declared to be

entitled to the scale of pay of Junior Manager

Grade Scale I; or at least Senior Special

Assistant with an allowance of Rs.3,500/-,

from 01.10.2005, with consequential pay

fixation pursuant to Exts.P5 and P6.

4. In response to the afore submissions

made on behalf of the petitioner by his

learned counsel - Sri.Sachin Ramesh, the

learned Standing Counsel for the Bank -

Sri.P.Gopal, conceded that Ext.P8 is a non-

speaking order but explained that the reasons, WPC 18313/11

why the petitioner could not be granted

benefits claimed for by him, has been averred

in the counter affidavit sworn to by the 2nd

respondent. He submitted that since the

petitioner was promoted as an Assistant

Manager in the cadre of Junior Manager Grade

I, with effect from 12.08.2009 and was posted

as Deputy Manager Accounts - officiating as

per Ext.P4, he was granted officiating

allowance as Deputy Manager (Accounts) for the

relevant period and that he is not eligible or

entitled for officiating allowance for the

period between Exts.P2 and P4. He added that

the petitioner is also not entitled to special

allowance attached to Senior Special

Assistants at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month

and therefore, that there is no question of

any violation of the constitutional guarantees

of the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed that

this Writ Petition be dismissed. WPC 18313/11

5. However, in reply, the learned counsel

for the petitioner - Sri.Sachin Ramesh

submitted that; as is evident from Ext.P2, his

client was only granted in-cadre promotion

under career progression special pay and

therefore, that the averments in the counter

affidavit are not sufficient to deny him the

benefits as sought for by him in Ext.P7. He,

therefore, reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P8 be

set aside and the reliefs sought for in this

Writ Petition be granted.

6. I have considered the afore

submissions and have also examined the

materials available on record.

7. At the outset, I must say that Ext.P8

is a wholly non-speaking order which has

rejected the claim of the petitioner through

Ext.P7, in the following manner:

With respect to the above, the appropriate authority has advised that, the request of the official cannot be considered.

WPC 18313/11

The official may be advised accordingly.

Therefore, there is substantial

justification for the petitioner in having

approached this Court, particularly because

the reasons why his claim in Ext.P7 has been

rejected cannot be discerned from Ext.P8 order

at all.

8. That said, Sri.P.Gopal tried to

support Ext.P8 on the strength of the

averments in the counter affidavit but I am

afraid that this cannot find favour with this

Court since it is well-settled, through the

various judgments starting from Mohinder Singh

Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [1978(1)

SCC 405], that an impugned order cannot be

bettered or explained by pleadings or by

subsequent orders. The competent Authority

ought to have considered the petitioner's

claim made in Ext.P7 and ought to have

answered to it properly, rather than have WPC 18313/11

issued Ext.P8 merely saying that his request

cannot be considered.

9. Therefore, notwithstanding the

averments in the counter affidavit, I am

certain that the competent Authority of the

respondent-Bank must reconsider the

petitioner's claim as impelled in Ext.P7 at

the earliest and unfettered what is contended

by them in the pleadings before this Court.

In the afore circumstances, I order this

writ petition and set aside Ext.P8; with a

consequential direction to the competent

Authority of the respondent-Bank to reconsider

Ext.P7 representation of the petitioner and

take a fresh decision thereon, after affording

him an opportunity of being heard - either

physically or through videoconferencing - thus

culminating in an appropriate order thereon,

as expeditiously as is possible, but not later

than four months from the date of receipt of a WPC 18313/11

copy of this judgment.

After I dictated this judgment,

Sri.P.Gopal submitted that the relevant Rules

applicable to the petitioner have been

produced along with the counter affidavit as

Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) and therefore, that the

afore directions may not be taken to construe

that these Rules cannot be looked into by the

competent Authority, while the exercise as

ordered herein is completed.

Needless to say, what I meant afore was

that the averments in the counter affidavit

will not constrain reconsideration of the

petitioner's claim in Ext.P7, but not that the

relevant Rules cannot be looked into or

applied.

Sd/-

                                          DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

       RR                                         JUDGE
 WPC 18313/11


                            APPENDIX
       PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

       EXHIBIT P1        TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
                         THE SERVICE RULES.

       EXHIBIT P2        TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
                         01/10/2005.

       EXHIBIT P3        TRUE COPY OF THE SIGN ON DETAILS OF

THE PETITIONER PUBLISHED BY THE BANK.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/10/2009 ISSUED BY THE SBI KATTOOR BRANCH.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 14/11/2009.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 16/02/2010.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07/10/10 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, SBI, KAIPUZHA BRANCH.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 08/02/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SBI TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25/03/2011 BEFORE THE CENTRAL PUBLIC WPC 18313/11

INFORMATION OFFICER, SBI, THIRUNAKKARA BRANCH.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14/05/2011 ALONG WITH CIRCULARS DATED 06/05/2008, 20/05/2008 AND 27/05/2009.

EXHIBIT P13 COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE CORE BANKING BRANCH MANUAL.

EXHIBIT P14 COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF THE PETITIONER FOR SEPTEMBER, 2011.

EXHIBIT P15 COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF THE PETITIONER FOR OCTOBER, 2011.

EXHIBIT P16 COPY OF THE PAY SLIPS OF THE SENIOR SPECIAL ASSISTANT, SMT. LILLY GEORGE FOR SEPTEMBER, 2011 AND OCTOBER, 2011.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF 'E' CIRCULAR NO.

CDO/P & HRD-IR/182005-2006 DATED 07/07/2005 EVIDENCING THE SCHEME OF INCADRE PROMOTIONS TO SENIOR ASSISTANTS AND SPECIAL ASSISTANTS IN THE CLERICAL CADRE AND THE DUTIES ATTACHED TO SUCH IN CADRE PROMOTION POST.

EXHIBIT R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.

CDO/P&HRD IR/47/2009-10 DATED 20/10/2009.