Rajasthan High Court
R.P. Sharma S/O (Late) Shri Ram ... vs Pallav Mohapatra on 16 December, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 2240/2018
R.p. Sharma S/o (Late) Shri Ram Niwas Gaur, Aged About 64
Years, Exd-Incharge Extension Counter Tps, Central Bank Of
India, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Now Retired Pf No. 29999, By Caste
Brahmin, R/o A-321, Triveni Nagar, Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur-
302018.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Pallav Mohapatra, Managing Director And C.e.o., Central
Bank Of India, Chandramukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai-
4000021.
2. R.k. Shrivastava, Deputy General Manager (Law),
Chandramukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 4000021.
3. D.p. Khurana, Senior Regional Manager, Central Bank Of
India, Regional Office, Anand Bhawan, 1St Floor, S.c.
Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 302001.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma (Present
in Person)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Shovit Jhajharia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
16/12/2022
This contempt petition has been filed seeking compliance of
the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.8684/2015.
Petitioner in person submits that respondents/contemnors
have flouted the direction issued by learned Single Judge of this
Court in denying him benefit of promotion which has been given to
the persons junior to him. He submits that there was no
(2 of 4) [CCP-2240/2018]
requirement of subjecting him to interview and only to harass and
victimize him, he has been declared ineligible for promotion in the
interview. Inviting attention of this Court towards the order of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 13.07.2018, he submits
that the Special Leave to Appeal preferred by the respondent-bank
was also dismissed. He, therefore, prays that the respondents
may suitably be punished and they may further be directed to
purge the contempt.
Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents,
inviting attention of this Court towards directions by a Division
Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 06.03.2018 in D.B.
Special Appeal (Writ) No.108/2018 preferred against order dated
17.11.2017, would submit that they were directed to consider
petitioner's candidature for further promotion in consonance with
the Rules with further direction to extend him all consequential
benefits from the date given by the learned Single Judge for actual
benefits, if he was found eligible for promotion. He submits that in
pursuance of direction of Division Bench, vide letter dated
11.10.2018, the petitioner was called for interview for promotion
(Mainstream) from MMG Scale-II to MMG Scale-III and in the
interview, since, he secured below 25% marks, he was denied
promotion in terms of clause 10.5 of the Promotion Policy
circulated vide Staff Circular No.588 dated 26.03.2014. Learned
senior counsel submits that the petitioner was duly informed
about result of the interview vide letter dated 15.11.2018.
Learned senior counsel submits that directions of the learned
Single Judge which were modified/clarified by the Division Bench
of this Court, has, since been fully complied with, no contempt is
made out. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of this contempt
(3 of 4) [CCP-2240/2018]
petition. Learned senior counsel for the respondent places reliance
upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of J.S.
Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar & Others, (1996) 6 SCC 291.
Heard. Considered.
The learned Single Judge has, vide its order dated
17.11.2017, directed the respondents to consider candidature of
the petitioner for further consequential promotion after
15.06.2014 and to accord him notional and actual benefits after
15.06.2014 if his record was found equal to the persons who have
been given promotion. However, a Division Bench of this Court
has, in D.B. Special Appeal No.108/2018 preferred thereagainst by
the respondents, vide its judgment dated 06.03.2018, clarified
that consideration of candidature of the petitioner for further
promotion would be in consonance to the Rules. The
clarification/direction was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India vide its order dated 13.07.2018 while dismissing the Special
Leave to Appeal No.16155/2018 preferred by the respondents.
Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the interview board
wherein, he was not found suitable for further promotion as he
secured below 25% marks. It is not disputed before this Court
that clause 10.5 of the Promotion Policy circulated vide Staff
Circular No.588 dated 26.02.2014 provides that in all promotion
processes under all channels, officers who secure below 25%
marks in the interview will be considered unsuitable for promotion.
Since, direction of this Court dated 17.11.2017 clarified by a
Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 06.03.2018
has been complied with, no case for contempt is made out.
The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly. Notices are
discharged.
(4 of 4) [CCP-2240/2018]
Application No.1/2022 also stands disposed off accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Keshav/40
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
