Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUNNAWAR AHMAD versus S.B.I. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Munnawar Ahmad v. S.B.I. And Others - WRIT - A No. 1992 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 21 (1 January 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 25

Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.  1992 of  1997

Munnawar Ahmad ....... Petitioner

Versus

State Bank of India and others .......... Respondents

........

Hon'ble Sabhajeet Yadav, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi learned counsel appearing for the  respondents.

The petitioner sought a relief of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.10.96 passed by the respondent no.4 contained in Annexure 5 of the writ petition and further relief in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to treat the petitioner as Class IV employee on the post of Messenger in the Bank  and pay him regular salary  for the post of Messenger. The relief sought by this petition  rests on the fact that petitioner has been working as casual employee in State Bank of India, Branch Bunkutti, District Basti at the fixed scale of Rs. 1200/- per month which is 1/3rd of regular salary of a Class IV employee. The initial appointment of the petitioner was made in the year 1980 and he is continuously working since 7.7.1981. The respondent no.4 has illegally started to treat the petitioner as Safai Karmchari contrary to the regulations issued from time to time since 1986. The petitioner moved a representation to treat the petitioner as Class IV employee on the post of Messenger in the Bank. Thereafter he filed a Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 26674 of 1996 which was decided by this Court vide  order dated 20.8.1996 whereby the respondent was directed to  decide the application filed by the petitioner vide Annexures 5,6,7 and 8 to this writ petition. It appears that in compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the respondent had  decided the application/representation of the petitioner filed in this regard vide impugned order dated 22.10.96 whereby the claim of promotion of the petitioner from the post of Farrash to the post of Messenger has been rejected  by a detailed reasoned order passed by the respondent. A bare perusal of paras 4 and 5 of the impugned order it transpires that the petitioner's claim has been considered but in Gorakhpur Region to which the petitioner belongs against the available vacancy his claim was not accepted as other senior and suitable persons are available for the post. It has been  denied that  any junior person to the petitioner has been given benefit of aforesaid  post of promotion/conversion and the petitioner has been denied of the aforesaid benefit.

In view of these findings of the respondent no.4 it would not be justified to interfere in the order impugned in the writ petition. However, the observations made herein above would not preclude the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner again  as and when vacancy in the Region would arise.

With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is dismissed.

Dt.8.12.2005

Sh  


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.