Rajasthan High Court
Madan Singh Rawat Son Of Late Shri ... vs Ajmer Central Co Operative Bank on 23 November, 2021
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22555/2018
Madan Singh Rawat Son Of Late Shri Dhan Singh, Aged About 58
Years, R/o New Basti, Madanpura, Post Rasulpura, District Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
Ajmer Central Co Operative Bank, Through Its Managing
Director, Jaipur Road, Ajmer
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Gayatri Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Lodha with
Mr. Rachit Sharma
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
23/11/2021
The brief facts of the case are as under:-
The petitioner was appointed as a IVth Class employee with
the respondent-Bank vide order dated 20.11.1990. His services
were terminated thrice on 15.03.1992, 13.05.1993 and
30.01.1999. Everytime the order of termination was challenged by
the petitioner and he was directed to be reinstated by the
competent Courts. Interestingly, each time it was left open by the
Courts for the respondent-Bank to pass fresh appropriate orders
relating to continuity of the services of the petitioner.
In the circumstances, when the petitioner was terminated for
the third time on 30.01.1999, he challenged the same before the
Labour Court and the order dated 30.01.1999 was set aside vide
award dated 10.09.2003 of the Labour Court.
The award of the Labour Court was challenged by the
respondent-Bank by way of a writ petition in which an interim
(2 of 3) [CW-22555/2018]
order dated 07.11.2003 was passed in favour of the Bank and the
award of the Labour Court was ordered to be stayed.
In that view of the matter, the petitioner was not reinstated
after 30.01.1999. Resultantly, he remained out of service right
from 30.01.1999 till the time he reached the period of
superannuation.
The writ petition of the respondent-Bank was ultimately
dismissed on 02.11.2017 which order was challenged by the bank
before the Division Bench of this Court. Division Bench of this
Court, while allowing the Special Appeal of the Bank observed as
under:-
"In the light of the aforesaid, the Court cannot
travel beyond the terms of the reference. The
workman did not make a claim or even pleaded for
regularization of his services or to pay him at
minimum of the pay-scale. Without any prayer and
argument, relief could not have been granted by
learned Single Judge thus we cause interference to
that extent. The direction aforesaid could not have
been given when the award was not challenged by the
workman. Such a direction could not have been given
in the writ petition filed by the management because
their position cannot be made bad to worse in their
own writ petition. Thus, to the extent of the direction
given in para No.7 of the judgment under challenge,
an interference is made. The direction for
consideration of the case for regularization and pay at
minimum of the pay scale on the post of Class-IV is
set aside while maintaining remaining order."
Now the petitioner has filed the present petition and prayed
for regularisation of his services from the initial date of his
appointment and for regular pension after his retirement in the
month of November, 2018. The petitioner has in the alternate
(3 of 3) [CW-22555/2018]
prayed for some lump-sum compensation in lieu of the
termination of his services.
The reply to the writ petition has been filed by the
respondent-Bank and it has been averred that after the decision of
the matter by the Division Bench, whereby the prayer of the
petitioner for grant of regular pay scale as well as regularization
was specifically denied, the present writ petition claiming the
same reliefs can neither be entertained nor be granted.
The respondent-Bank has also averred that there is no
provision for payment of pension to the employees of the Bank
and therefore too, the same cannot be granted to the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
It is not in dispute, as mentioned above, the Division Bench
of this Court has already denied the award of regularization of
services or grant of minimum pay scale to the petitioner.
The issues raised in the present petition are the same reliefs
as denied by the Division Bench and therefore, cannot be
permitted to be reopened and reagitated denovo by the petitioner.
The order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Division Bench
being not challenged further has become final and even otherwise,
this Court in its limited jurisdiction, cannot entertain any petition
for the relief already adjudicated and decided by the Division
Bench.
In that view of the matter, the present petition is dismissed.
(REKHA BORANA),J
AARZOO ARORA /60
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
