Dismissed

Sudhir Kumar Jain v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC15 Nov 2017W.P.(C)/4165/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged termination of services from Syndicate Bank, contending clause 8(1A) of the Nationalized Banks Scheme was ultra vires. The High Court held that since remedies were exhausted and no leave to raise the constitutional issue was sought previously, the present petition could not be entertained.

What did the court decide?

No relief; petition against termination and challenge to Clause 8(1A) of the Scheme was dismissed.

Sudhir Kumar Jain Vs Union of India & Anr. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4165/2015

¶4

SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Manish Singhvi and Mr Shailja Nanda Mishra, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Ms Shipra Kandoi, Advocates for R-1 & 2.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R

¶8

% 15.11.2017

¶9

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia , praying as

¶10

under:-

¶11

“a) Issue an appropriate writ, direction or order declaring clause 8(1A) of the Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 as ultra vires and unconstitutional.”

¶12

The essential grievance of the petitioner stems from an order dated 22.09.2014, whereby the services of the petitioner with Syndicate Bank were terminated. Such termination was in exercise of powers conferred under Sub Clause (1A) of Clause 8 of the Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980.

¶13

The petitioner challenged his termination order by way of a writ petition (W.P.(C) 456/2015), which was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of

¶14

this Court on 16.01.2015.

¶15

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court (being LPA 253/2015) which was also rejected by an order dated 27.04.2015. Before the Division Bench, the appellant sought to challenge the vires of Sub Clause 1(A) of Clause 8 of the Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980. The petitioner was not permitted to raise the aforesaid contention on the ground that no such challenge had been laid in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. Further, the petitioner sought had also not sought any leave to urge this issue before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, in the order dated 27.04.2015, also noticed that no prayer to the said effect had been made.

¶16

The petitioner sought to appeal against the order dated 27.04.2015 passed in LPA No.253/2015 before the Supreme Court. However, the Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner in this regard was dismissed. It is thus seen that the petitioner has already exhausted his remedies against the order of his dismissal and, therefore, cannot be permitted to re-agitate his grievances by way of now raising an independent challenge to Clause 8 (1A) of the Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980.

¶17

The relief prayed by the petitioner cannot be considered in a vacuum and no consequential orders can be passed and none have been sought. 7. It is also relevant to note that according to the petitioner, Clause 8 (1A) of the Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980 has already been declared as ultra vires by

¶18

the Division Bench of this Court in M. Gopalakrishnaiah v. Union of India: 1994 (30) DRJ 251.

¶19

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶20

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶21

NOVEMBER 15, 2017 MK

Sudhir Kumar Jain v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Kumar Jain v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S National Institute of Food Technology Enterpreneurship and Management (Niftem) Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Mukesh Dagar and Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sarla Lal Vs Delhi Energy Developt.Agency & Anr.

Dilraman Singh Chawla Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Cpl Manoranjan Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bihar Rpnn Ltd. Employees Union Vs UOI & Ors.

Uoi(Thr.G.M.Northern Railway) Vs Mohammad Akhtar & Anr.

Gavade Kisan Babu Vs Union of India

Dilraman Singh Chawla Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Tata Steel Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

Intellectual Property Attorneys Association Vs the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks & Anr.

Siddhartha Mohan Vs Saket Bar Association and Anr.

Ecoman Enviro Solutions Private Limited Vs the Competition Commission of India and Ors.

Ajmil Enterprises, Mumbai Vs Secretary Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs and Another