Partly allowed

Punja Giga Odedara v. Chief Manager Bank of Baroda

Gujarat HC22 Aug 2022SCA/631/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Gujarat partly allowed a writ petition seeking regularization of service for employees with over 28 years of tenure. Directing the bank to consider the claim for parity with absorbed employees and grant consequential benefits via Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Respondent-bank to consider petitioners for absorption and extend benefits within 3 months; opportunity of hearing granted.

Punja Giga Odedara Vs Chief Manager Bank of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

C/SCA/631/2018 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 631 of 2018

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

PUNJA GIGA ODEDARA & 1 other(s) Versus CHIEF MANAGER BANK OF BARODA & 1 other(s)

¶6

==========================================================

¶7

Appearance:

¶8

MR JOHNSEY P MACWAN(5498) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2

¶9

==========================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

¶11

Date : 22/08/2022

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with following prayer(s):-

¶14

“7(A) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and or a writ of certiorari and in or appropriate writ in any nature by issuance of the direction upon the respondent authorities to regularize the service of the employees on consideration of the length of service of the petitioners of more than 28 years in the respondent bank, without any bloat in the tenure of the present petitioners in the interest of justice.

¶15

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordship be pleased to consider the request of the petitioner vide an application dated 06.12.2016 made by the petitioners for regularization of service by considering the length of service i.e. more than 28 years in the present case and thereby extent all the benefits of the service on the post of petitioner at par with regular employees serving in the respondent-bank.

¶16

(C) Be pleased to issue directions upon the respondent authorities by directing the respondent to extend the benefit of regular pay scale as applicable to the regular employee working in the respondent-bank. And further to grant consequential benefits with effect from the date of the circular dated 24.03.2008.

¶17

(D) ...”

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

C/SCA/631/2018 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2022

¶20

At the outset, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners are still discharging their duties with the respondent-bank and are claiming absorption as per the terms of settlement.

¶21

Learned advocate for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the terms of settlement, which is placed at Annexure-D to this petition.

¶22

According to learned advocate for the petitioners, the case of both the petitioners would fall either in Phase-1 or Phase-2, but in any case, considering the longevity of service of the petitioners with the respondent-bank, the case of the petitioners deserve consideration even on the ground of parity, as according to her, several other persons, who are similarly situated have been given the benefit of absorption as per tripartite settlement.

¶23

As against this, learned advocate for the respondent-bank has immediately objected to the petition on the ground of disputed facts and that for the purpose of implementing of terms of settlement, the alternate remedy of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is available.

¶24

The Court has taken into consideration the submissions made by both the sides particularly, the period for which the petitioners have rendered services and are still in continue in service, which is almost more than approximately 30 years. The petition is of 2018 and as the claim of the petitioners prima-facie appears to be genuine and deserves to be considered by drawing

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

C/SCA/631/2018 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2022

¶27

parity with the other employees similarly situated, the Court is not inclined to relegate the petitioners back under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶28

Moreover, considering the submissions of learned advocate for the petitioners, the respondent-bank being a nationalized bank and having absorbed other similarly situated persons, and therefore, the treatment meted out to the petitioner would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court deems it fit that the case of the petitioners be considered for the purpose of absorption in terms of settlement and benefit available to the other similarly situated employees and such exercise be undertaken by the respondent-bank within a period of 3(Three) months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. Before considering the case of the petitioners, the petitioners shall be given an opportunity of hearing.

¶29

The present petition is partly allowed. The outcome of the decision of the respondent-bank be communicated to the petitioners within a period of 3(Three) months. In case of any difficulty, liberty in favour of the petitioners is reserved to approach this Court.

¶30

(A.Y. KOGJE, J)

¶31

GIRISH

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Punja Giga Odedara v. Chief Manager Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punja Giga Odedara v. Chief Manager Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Desai Bhavanaben Faljibhai Vs State Government

Vrushikkumar Chhanalal Shah Vs State of Gujarat

Devendrakumar Ratnabhai Bamania Vs State of Gujarat

Shantilal C Chaudhary Vs Gujarat State Khadi Gramodyog Board

Siddiqui Mahmud Husain Vs State of Gujarat

Legal Metrology Inspector Association Vs Legal Metrology Department