Disposed

Subhash Chandra v. Shri Srikant Goswami M.D. U.P Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd.

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2023CAPL/2200/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined a compliance affidavit to determine if the bank had complied with a prior direction granting notional promotion to the applicant. Finding the direction was substantially complied with when the applicant was promoted on the same post held by his junior, the contempt application was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The contempt application was disposed of after finding substantial compliance with the earlier judgment.

Subhash Chandra Vs Shri Srikant Goswami M.D. U.P Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:44216

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2200 of 2016

¶4

Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Opposite Party :- Shri Srikant Goswami M.D. U.P Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Mathur,Ajay Kishore Pandey,Piyush Pathak,Sharad Pathak,Vaibhav Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Prashast Puri,Santosh Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.

¶6

Compliance affidavit filed today in Court, may be taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Akber Ahmad, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the opposite party and Shri Prashast Puri, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

¶8

Vide judgment and order dated 10.8.2016, the following direction was issued:

¶9

" We have heard counsel for the parties and we find that claim of the petitioner has been denied on irrelevant ground. The petitioner was exonerated in the disciplinary proceeding, nothing remains adverse against him at the moment. So far as the entries for some years are concerned, if they are not complete then average has to be given as contemplated under the various Government Orders. The same principle has to be followed in the department as well.

¶10

It is not disputed that the juniors of the petitioner have been promoted and the criteria for promotion is subject to rejection of unfit.

¶11

In these circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority to consider and give notional promotion to the petitioner by considering his case from the date his juniors were promoted within a period of three months."

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that judgment of this came into existence on 10.8.2016, against which the

¶13

opposite party filed special leave petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein stay order was granted. He next submits that at the time of filing special leave petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court, Shri R.P. Singh was holding the post of Deputy General Manager and the special leave petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11.7.2022. Meaning thereby, the position which was existing on 10.8.2016 is to be maintained.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that at the relevant point of time, Shri R.P. Singh was holding the post of Deputy General Manager. On 16.8.2021, Shri R.P.Singh was promoted as General Manager and on 17.8.2021, the applicant was granted promotion on the post of Deputy General Manager. In this view of the matter, he submits that it is shame compliance of the judgment and order dated 10.8.2016.

¶15

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and perused the order of compliance.

¶16

On perusal of the order of compliance, it is clear that the direction issued by this Court was to grant promotion to the applicant from the date his juniors have been granted promotion. At the relevant point of time, Shri R.P. Singh was holding the post of Deputy General Manager and the applicant was granted notional promotion on the said post.

¶17

In view of the above, there is substantial compliance of the judgment and order dated 10.8.2016. In case the applicant is aggrieved by the order of compliance dated 22.5.2023, he may approach before the appropriate Forum for redressal.

¶18

With the aforesaid observation, the contempt application is finally disposed of .

¶19

Order Date :- 10.7.2023 GK Sinha

¶20

Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM KUMAR SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Subhash Chandra v. Shri Srikant Goswami M.D. U.P Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chandra v. Shri Srikant Goswami M.D. U.P Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

O.P.Trivedi Vs Chairman Bhagirath Gramin Bank and Others

Amrit Lal Sahu Vs the State of U.P. through the Secretary Appointment Deptt.

Ram Bahal Verma Vs Dy. Registrar Coop. Socs. and 4 Others

P.P.Singh Vs State of U.P.through Secy. Textile Lucknow and Another

Ram Avadh Yadav Vs M.D.U.P.State Sugar Corpn.Gomit Nagar and 1 Ors.

Gyanendra Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P.through Secretary Secondary Education and 5 Ors.