High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Munnawar Ahmad v. S.B.I. And Others - WRIT - A No. 1992 of 1997  RD-AH 21 (1 January 2005)
Court No. 25
Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 1992 of 1997
Munnawar Ahmad ....... Petitioner
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.