Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Srikishan Sharma vs Chittorgarh Central Coop.Bank ... on 23 January, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3714/2018
L.R. of Srikishan Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
Chittorgarh Central Cooperative Bank & Anr.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2635/2014
L.R. of Srikishan Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
Chittorgarh Central Cooperative Bank And Anr.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Tatia on behalf of
Mr. Sajjan Singh
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 18/01/2023
Pronounced on 23/01/2023
1. These civil writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3714/2018:
"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition
may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate, writ order
or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to pay
the due salary with interest @ 12% per annum for the
period between 30.03.2014 to 24.04.2015."
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2635/2014:
"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition
may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate, writ order or
direction the impugned order dt. 29.03.2014 Annex.1 may
(Downloaded on 23/01/2023 at 11:53:32 PM)
(2 of 5) [CW-3714/2018]
kindly be declared illegal and be accordingly quashed and
set aside."
2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned
counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner (since deceased -
expired on 16.04.2021, now represented by his LRs) was
appointed as Manager in respondent-Bank in the year 1981.
Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as adhoc Loan Supervisor
on temporary basis by respondents vide order dated 01.10.2013,
to which the petitioner submitted his consent, as mentioned in the
order dated 03.10.2013 (Annexure-1 to WP No.3714/2018),
whereupon, in consonance with the aforementioned order dated
01.10.2013, the impugned order dated 29.03.2014 was passed,
aggrieved whereby, the instant WP No.2635/2014 has been
preferred.
2.1. This Hon'ble Court, vide its order dated 07.04.2014 passed
in the above-numbered WP No.2635/2014, while issuing notices,
had stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order dated
29.03.2014; whereafter, upon the non-compliance of the said
interim order dated 07.04.2014 by the respondents, in not
allowing the petitioner join his duties, the petitioner preferred S.B.
Writ Contempt Petition No. 512/2014. The said contempt petition
however, was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated
11.04.2017, upon the statement made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents to the effect of due
compliance of the Court's order having been made and that the
petitioner had been paid the dues as well.
(Downloaded on 23/01/2023 at 11:53:32 PM)
(3 of 5) [CW-3714/2018]
2.2 The petitioner was reinstated in service on 24.04.2015 and
stood retired on 31.07.2017. However, since his dues, as stated in
WP No.3714/2018, were not paid to him for the period from
30.03.2014 to 24.04.2015, the petitioner has preferred the said
petition, praying for payment thereof @ 12% interest per annum.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the
respondents reinstated the petitioner in service, then it is the duty
of the respondents to pay to the petitioner his due salary and
other benefits, that were accrued to him. Thus, the impugned
action on the part of the respondents is clearly unsustainable in
the eye of law.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that the
respondents have also given false statement before the Hon'ble
Court, on the date of dismissal of the aforementioned contempt
petition, that the entire due amount has been paid to the
petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that the order
dated 29.03.2014 did amount to a major punishment to the
petitioner, that too without any fault on his part, and thus the said
order dated 29.03.2014, whereby his temporary appointment
order was withdrawn; moreover, the said order is apparently
contrary to the provisions of law and deserves to be quashed and
set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his
submissions, placed reliance on the order dated 17.01.2022
passed by this Hon'ble Court in Kailash Chandra Agarwal Vs.
(Downloaded on 23/01/2023 at 11:53:32 PM)
(4 of 5) [CW-3714/2018]
The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.10980/2017).
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, and
submitted that the petitioner was appointed on adhoc temporary
basis vide order date 01.10.2013, and the petitioner also
submitted his consent, thereby accepting the conditions of his
appointment, and thus, the impugned order dated 29.03.2014,
which was passed in consonance with the order dated 01.10.2013
was perfectly justified under the law.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents that it is revealed from
the record that the petitioner accepted the condition that his
temporary appointment shall be regularized only in case a vacancy
for the same is available, and therefore, in absence of such
vacancy, his appointment order dated 01.10.2013 was liable to be
withdrawn, and the same was accordingly withdrawn vide the
impugned order dated 29.03.2014.
9. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the
respondents relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ranendra Chandra Banjerjee Vs. Union of
India & Anr., AIR 1963 SC 1552.
10. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
11. This Court finds that the petitioner was appointed as Loan
Supervisor vide order dated 01.10.2013, followed by his consent
to the conditions as mentioned therein; however, the said
(Downloaded on 23/01/2023 at 11:53:32 PM)
(5 of 5) [CW-3714/2018]
appointment order was withdrawn vide the impugned order dated
29.03.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner reinstated in service on
24.04.2015, in pursuant of the interim order dated 07.04.2104
passed in the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
2635/2014, whereafter he stood retired on 31.07.2017. This Court
further finds that for the period from 30.03.2014 to 24.04.2015,
the petitioner was not extended his due benefits, as stated in the
said petition.
12. Thus, looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the
present case, and the material placed on the record, in SB. Civil
Writ Petition No. 3714/2018 is allowed; accordingly, the
respondents are directed to pay the entire due salary and benefits
during the period between 30.03.2014 to 24.04.215 to the
petitioner, after due determination and computation thereof,
within a period two months from today.
13. However, this Court does not find any case to be made out
so as to grant the petitioner the relief prayed for in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 2635/2014, and therefore, the same is
hereby dismissed.
14. All pending applications are disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
287-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
