Vinay Prakash vs The Bank Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 1154 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7995 of 2021
     ======================================================

Vinay Prakash Son of Dhruva Narayan Singh Resident of Mohalla- Belbanwa Shivpuri, P.s.- Motihari Town, District- East Champaran at Motihari

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The Bank of India through the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Pankaj Market, Saraiyaganj, Muzaffarpur, P.s.- Muzaffarpur Town, district- Muzaffarpur

2. The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Pankaj Market, Saraiyaganj, Muzaffarpur, P.s.- Muzaffarpur Town, district- Muzaffarpur

3. The Branch Manager, B.O.I. Motihari Branch, P.s.- Motihari, District- East Champaran

4. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajan, Advocate : Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rupak Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 14-02-2022

The matter is heard via video conferencing due to

circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

following relief/reliefs:

"That this is an application for grant of an appropriate writ for a direction to the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in the regular establishment of the Bank in terms of direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 10077/2018 (arising out of S.L.P. (C)No. 4574/2017) and in the light of the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CONMT. PET (C)No. 977/2019 in C.A.No. Patna High Court CWJC No.7995 of 2021 dt.14-02-2022

10077/2018 with effect from 28.09.2018 with all back wages and allowance from the date of re-instatement."

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted

on instruction that petitioner has been taken back to duty then what

remains in the present petition is whether petitioner is entitled to

regularization in terms of various decisions of the Apex Court. In

this regard, petitioner submitted representation on 15.10.2019 vide

Annexure 7. Therefore, the concerned respondent-Bank is hereby

directed to pass a speaking order and communicate as to whether

petitioner is entitled for regularization or not? If he is entitled for

regularization, necessary order shall be passed while extending

service and monetary benefits in accordance with law. The above

exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from

the date of receipt of this order.

4. With the above observations, writ petition stand

disposed off.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) GAURAV S./-

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date