Indian Bank Ltd., vs M. Chandra Kala
2021 Latest Caselaw 2132 Tel

Item No.16

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                         W.A.No.849 OF 2019

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.    The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 22.08.2019

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20928 of 2001 filed by

the respondent/writ petitioner praying inter alia for declaring the

action of the appellants for not regularizing her service as a Safai

Karamchari, as arbitrary and illegal and for seeking regularization of

her services with all consequential benefits.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has simply

issued directions to the appellants/respondents to consider the case of

the respondent/writ petitioner for regularizing her service and for

granting her regular pay scale attached to the post of Sweeper within

eight weeks.

3. In view of the aforesaid innocuous nature of order whereby, the

appellants have only been directed to consider the case of the

respondent/writ petitioner and take a decision within a period of eight

weeks, we have enquired learned counsel for the appellants to address

the court on the maintainability of the present appeal. In our opinion,

no adverse order has been passed against the appellants for them to

have filed an appeal.

4. In fact, had the appellants taken a decision within a reasonable

time reckoned from the date of passing of the order, the entire matter

would have been over by now. The impugned order was passed on

22.08.2019. The present appeal was filed by the appellants/Bank in

October 2019 and ever since then, the matter has been hanging fire for

no fault of the respondent. Rather, the order sheets reveal that it has

been on account of repeated requests for adjournments made on behalf

of the appellants that the present appeal has remained pending.

5. Even today, when learned counsel for the appellants states that

he is recently been engaged in the matter by the appellants/Bank and

needs time to obtain instructions, we had passed over the matter. On

the second call, yet again learned counsel for the appellants seeks an

adjournment, which has been declined.

6. We do not see any reason to entertain the present appeal which

is dismissed as meritless along with the pending applications, if any.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

19.07.2021 Lrkm