Disposed¶52

Arjun Prasad Singh v. Uco Bank

Jharkhand HC10 Nov 2025WPC/5142/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

UCO Bank workman reversion from officers' cadre; para 3.8.3 Promotional Policy Settlement for Workmen Staff 1988; Circular No. CHO/PAS/01/2006-07 dated 11.04.2006 enhancing debarment from 2 years to 5 years; promotional examination Head Casher-One Line / Training for Promotion Test; letter dated 24.08.2012; C.V. Satheeshchandran Vs. General Manager, UCO Bank (2008) 2 SCC 653 distinguished; policy in vogue at time of cause of action; Deepak Roshan, J.; High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi; W.P (S) 5142 of 2012; disposed 10.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach the concerned authority with a detailed calculation for payment of any remaining monetary benefits, if so advised; otherwise no relief granted. ¶52

Arjun Prasad Singh Vs Uco Bank — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to approach the concerned authority with a detailed calculation for payment of any remaining monetary benefits, if so advised; otherwise no relief granted.

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the letter dated 24.08.2012 depriving the petitioner of participation in the promotional examination (Head Casher-One Line, Training for Promotion Test) should be quashed and consequential directions issued. +2 more

¶18

Court's answer

No relief can be granted to the petitioner on the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

The Circular dated 11.04.2006 effected an amendment to the existing provision in para 3.8.3 of the Promotional Policy Settlement for Workmen Staff, 1988 with respect to the period of debarment, enhancing it from two years to five years.

¶45

Key takeaways

As the cause of action of the petitioner arose in 2009, the Circular dated 11.04.2006 is applicable to him, and the respondent-Bank's action in debarring him for five years is just and proper.ratio¶46
The Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in C.V. Satheeshchandran Vs. General Manager, UCO Bank, (2008) 2 SCC 653 does not assist the petitioner because the circular dated 11.04.2006 was not considered therein; the Apex Court had considered the Promotional Policy Settlement for Workmen Staff dated 13.04.1988.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jharkhand High Court (W.P (S). No. 5142 of 2012, Deepak Roshan, J., 10.11.2025): A retired UCO Bank clerk, promoted to Junior Management Grade (Scale-I) w.e.f. 31.03.2009, sought reversion on 26.06.2009 and was thereafter barred by letter dated 24.08.2012 from the promotional examination (Head Casher-One Line, Training for Promotion Test). Held: the Circular dated 11.04.2006 amended para 3.8.3 of the Promotional Policy Settlement for Workmen Staff, 1988, enhancing the debarment period on refusal of promotion/reversion from two years to five years; since the petitioner's cause of action arose in 2009, the amended five-year provision applies and the Bank's action is just and proper. The Apex Court decision in C.V. Satheeshchandran Vs. General Manager, UCO Bank, (2008) 2 SCC 653 does not assist the petitioner as it did not consider the 2006 circular. No relief granted; writ application disposed of with liberty to claim any unpaid monetary benefits with a detailed calculation.

¶1

2025:JHHC:33818

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P (S). No. 5142 of 2012

¶4

¶5

Arjun Prasad Singh, son of late Sitaram Singh, resident of UCO Bank, Near BIT Mesra, P.O. Mesra, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi.

¶6

……….. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The UCO Bank through the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having Head Office Kolkata, 10 B.T.M. Sarini, Kolkata-700001.

¶9

The General Manager, UCO Bank, Kolkata, 3&4, D.D. Block, Sector-I, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064.

¶10

The Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Sainik Market, Main Road, Ranchi.

¶11

The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, B.I.T. Mesra, B.I.T Mesra, P.O. Mesra, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi.

¶12

……….. Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Advocate

¶16

¶17

28/ 10.11.2025 The instant application has been preferred for following relief:

¶18

(A) For quashing of letter dated 24.08.2012 issued from the office of the concerned respondent depriving this petitioner for participating in promotional examination of Head Casher-One Line, Training for Promotion Test.

¶19

(B) For issuance of direction to the respondent to allow this petitioner one chance for participating in the said examination as relaxation given to the permanently debarred employees in the matter of reversion.

¶20

(C) For taking into consideration his date of birth and provision made under para 3.4.2 of the said Promotional Policy Settlement, 1988.

¶21

(D) For further issuance of direction to the respondent for taking lenient view considering his length of service of 28 years and he was not availed any promotional benefit.

¶22

2. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 15.12.1980 in the respondent-Bank at Jharia, Dhanbad. He participated in promotion process to the next higher post i.e. Junior Management Grade (Scale-I) and qualified the same. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Junior Management Grade (Scale-I) w.e.f.

¶23

¶24

2025:JHHC:33818

¶25

31.03.2009 and was directed to join Zonal Office at Hyderabad (A.P.). Thereafter, the petitioner joined the promoted post and on 26.06.2009 he requested for reversion in view of Clause-3.8.3 of Promotional Policy Settlement for Workmen Staff, 1988.

¶26

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in Clause3.8.3 it has been categorically indicated that when an employee on promotion to Officers’ cadre refuses the promotion or seeks reversion during the period of promotion, he would be debarred for promotion for two years from the date of such refusal. Relying upon this clause, he submits that the action of the respondent-Bank in considering that period of non-entitlement of two year, they have considered 5 years which has adversely affected the entire career of the petitioner.

¶27

4. He further submits that the law is well settled that the Policy which would be in vogue at the time of cause of action, the same would be applicable and no amendment would affect the same. As such, the instant application be allowed and respondent-Bank be directed to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

¶28

5. He further submits that now the grievance of the petitioner only remains for payment of monetary benefits, inasmuch as, the petitioner had already retired on 01.03.2017.

¶29

6. In reply to the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank draws attention of the Court towards a circular dated 11.04.2006, wherein there was an amendment in the existing provision of para-3.8.3 of Promotional Policy Settlement for Workmen Staff, 1988 and contends that the period of debarment for 2 years was enhanced to 5 years; as such, the petitioner was not entitled for promotion and accordingly no promotional benefits would accrue and all other monetary benefits have already been extended to the petitioner.

¶30

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, especially, the Promotional Policy Settlement for Workmen Staff, 1988 and Circular dated 11.04.2006. Since entire lis is with the interpretation of two

¶31

¶32

2025:JHHC:33818

¶33

circulars; for brevity, relevant portion of Promotional Policy Settlement for Workmen Staff, 1988 is extracted herein below:

¶34

“3.8 General Conditions :

¶35

3.8.1. …………

¶36

3.8.2. …………

¶37

3.8.3. Reversion

¶38

a) Where an employee on promotion to officers’ cadre refuses the promotion or seeks reversion during the period of promotion, he would be debarred for promotion for two years from the date of such refusal/ reversion. ………………”

¶39

8. The contention of the petitioner is that though the original settlement dated 13.04.1988 clearly indicates that the debarment of any person who refuses the promotion is only for 2 years but the respondents has debarred him for 5 years.

¶40

9. The case of the respondents is on the reliance of Circular No. CHO/PAS/01/2006-07 dated 11.04.2006. For brevity, the same is extracted herein below:

¶41

Existing provision in Para 3.8.3 of PPS Amendments a) Where an employee on promotion to a) Where an employee on officers’ cadre refuses the promotion or promotion to officers’ cadre refuses seeks reversion during the period of the promotion or seeks reversion probation, he would be debarred for during the period of probation, he promotion for two years from the date of would be debarred for promotion such refusal/reversion. In such case he for five years from the date of such would be reverted to his substantive refusal/reversion. In such case he cadre, which he occupied prior to his would be reverted to his substantive promotion on emoluments that he would cadre, which he occupied prior to have drawn in that cadre as if he was not his promotion subject to promoted. availability of similar vacancy in the same seniority region. However, if no similar vacancy is available, he will then be reverted only as a clerk and be posted in the same seniority region . b) Employees who seek reversion after No change . expiry of probation period may be allowed reversion at the discretion of the Existing provision will continue . Bank. In such case the concerned employee shall forfeit permanently his chance for promotion to officers' cadre,

¶42

¶43

2025:JHHC:33818

¶44

and shall be posted in the capacity of a clerk, notwithstanding his occupying any functional special allowance post prior to his promotion. His name will be included in the common seniority list of eligible employees in the clerical cadre for selection to functional special allowance posts under Bipartite Settlements after five years from the date of such reversion. NOTE: On reversion under both 3.8.3 NOTE: On reversion under both (a) & (b) above such employees will 3.8.3 (a) & (b) above such work in both Cash and Accounts employees will work in both Cash Departments and Accounts Departments.

¶45

10. From bare perusal of the Circular dated 11.04.2006, it is clear that there was an amendment in existing provision in para-3.8.3 of Promotional Policy Settlement for Workmen Staff, 1988, whereby the amendment was made with regard to period of debarment. In other words, vide provision in para-3.8.3 of Promotional Policy Settlement for Workmen Staff, 1988, there was debarment for only 2 years but in the amendment which came into effect on 11.04.2006, the said debarment was enhanced to 5 years and admittedly, the cause of action of the petitioner arose in 2009 when he was debarred for 2 years on the ground that he refused to take promotion.

¶46

11. As such, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that Circular dated 11.04.2006 would be applicable in the case of the petitioner and the action of the respondent-Bank in debarring the petitioner for 5 years is just and proper.

¶47

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.V. Satheeshchandran Vs. General Manager, UCO Bank , reported in (2008) 2 SCC 653 . However, after going through the said judgment it is apparent that the circular dated 11.04.2006 has not been considered for the obvious reason that this circular came into effect from 11.04.2006 and the circular which was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court was with regard to the Promotional Policy Settlement for Workmen Staff dated

¶48

¶49

2025:JHHC:33818

¶50

13.04.1988. Thus, the petitioner will not get any help from the judgment cited at bar.

¶51

13. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case no relief can be granted to the petitioner. However, if at all there is any monetary benefit which still remains to be paid to the petitioner, he will approach the concerned authority with a detailed calculation for payment of the same, if so advised.

¶52

14. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of.

¶53

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶54

10^th November, 2025

¶55

Kunal

¶56

Uploaded on 22 / 11 /2025

¶57