Remanded

K.P.Ramakrishna Panicker v. State Bank of Tranvancore

Kerala HC7 Jul 2009WP(C)/1487/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a retired postal employee seeking promotion to an officer's cadre. The court held the Chief Commissioner failed in duty under Section 59 of Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. Petition remitted for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Matter remitted to the 4th respondent for fresh consideration of the petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Special Assistant.

K.P.Ramakrishna Panicker Vs State Bank of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 1487 of 2006(B)

¶6

-------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

SHRI.K.P. RAMAKRISHNA PANICKER, S/O. PARAMESWARA PANICKER, TELEPHONE OPERATOR, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MAIN BRANCH, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686 001.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.S.K.BALACHANDRAN.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

------------------------

¶13

1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT.OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AFFAIRS, (BANKING DIVISION) NEW DELHI.

¶16

4. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, SAROJIN HOUSE 6 BHAGWAN DAS ROAD, NEW DELHI-110.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY MR.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR.RONY J.PALLATH, R3 & R4 BY MR. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. S.G.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C). NO.1487/2006-B:

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 12/08/86.

¶23

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMMENDATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM SRI. SHANMUGHA VADIVELU.

¶24

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMMENDATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM SRI. K.M. MATHEW.

¶25

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMMENDATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM SRI. K.T. JACOB.

¶26

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPRECIATION LETTER DT. 08/07/92.

¶27

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 05/07/01 RECOMMENDING THE PETITIONER FOR NATIONAL AWARD.

¶28

EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR. GEORGE PETER.

¶29

EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DT. 18/02/97.

¶30

EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DT. 19/08/2000.

¶31

EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DT. 10/08/2000.

¶32

EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 04/05/2002.

¶33

EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE STAFF CIRCULAR NO. 32/2000.

¶34

EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 22/01/98. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 27/05/02. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 15/11/02. EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 02/12/02. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DT. 07/01/03.

¶35

EXT.P.18: COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 04/03/02.

¶36

EXT.P.19: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 08/08/05.

¶37

W.P.(C). NO.1487/2006-B:

¶38

EXT.P.20: COPY OF THE CONTAINING RELEVANT PORTIONS FROM THE NOTIFICATION NO. 16-25/99-NI-1 DT. 31/05/2001 ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT.

¶39

EXT.P.21: COPY CONTAINING THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF NON-SUBORDINATE STAFF OF SBT AS ON 01/01/2003.

¶40

EXT.P.22: COPY CONTAINING THE RULES REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF SENIOR ASSISTANTS AND SPECIAL ASSISTANTS IN STATE BANK OF INDIA AND THE RATES OF SPECIAL PAY PAYABLE TO CLERICAL STAFF.

¶41

EXT.P.23: COPY OF THE STAFF CIRCULAR NO. 13 OF 1999 DTD. 27/03/1999 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.

¶42

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT:

¶43

EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE BANKING DIVISION DTD. 04/03/2002.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

W.P.C. No.1487 OF 2006

¶49

Dated, 7^th day of July, 2009

¶50

JUDGMENT

¶51

When this writ petition was moved, the writ

¶52

petitioner was working as the telephone operator, in the State Bank of Travancore, Main Branch, Kottayam. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner had retired from service on 30.6.2008. He preferred this writ petition praying inter aila to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing Ext.P17 and P19 orders parsed by the 2^nd and 4^th respondents respectively and to direct the Ist respondent to give promotion to the petitioner in officer's cadre with effect from 1.1.96 or any other date after 1.1.96. It is also prayed for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Special Assistant with effect from 20.11.1989 or any other near date and accordingly direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide the entire service benefits to the petitioner with effect from the date of such

WPC 1487/06

-:2:-

promotion.

During the pendency of the above writ petition, the writ petition was amended. The case of the petitioner

¶57

is that he had entered into the service of the bank on 6.4.1970 and worked upto 22.7.74 as Clerk. From 1.7.98 he was working as Telephone Operator without any promotion. While he was working as Clerk, especially in the Kottayam Medical College Branch, SBT, somebody, on mistaken identity, poured acid on his face which resulted in the loss of both the eye sight. He had narrated his various achievements and also certain awards obtained by him. According to the petitioner, several juniors were given promotion while the petitioner was retained in the same position. Thus according to the petitioner, though he was fully qualified and got sufficient experience, his promotion to Non-subordinate group was denied. It is his further case that his promotion in the Officers Group was also denied. Before the filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner had already approached this Court by filing

¶58

WPC 1487/06

¶59

-:3:-

¶60

writ petition before this court. But subsequently, the same was withdrawn as he was relegated to move before the 4^th respondent. Thus Ext.P19 order passed by the 4^th respondent is challenged in this writ petition.

¶61

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, similarly situated persons were given promotion by extending the benefit conferred by Circular dated 19.8.2000 in the UCO Bank. It is also pointed out that in various banks in India, blind persons are working as officers. According to the counsel, in the case of petitioner alone, he was differently treated and no promotion was given in spite of his better academic and service backgrounds. It is the contention of the counsel that Circular indicated above is applicable to the UCO bank on the basis of the Government letter dated 18.2.97. When the 4^th respondent issued Ext.P19 order, it is observed that there is no reservation for promotion from clerical to Officer's cadre for physically handicapped employees, and such observation was made on the strength of the

¶62

WPC 1487/06

¶63

-:4:-

¶64

government letter 3.9.2001-SCT(B) dated 4.3.2002. But

¶65

according to the counsel, the 4^th respondent found that the petitioner 's claim for promotion to the officer's group cannot be entertained. The 4^th respondent ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner atleast for the promotion to the other group/other post. In this connection, the learned counsel invited my attention to Sections 58 and 59 of 'the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995'. Section 58 of the said Act deals with functions of Chief Commissioner. Section 59 runs as:

¶66

“59. Chief Commissioner to look into complaints with respect to deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities.- Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 58 the Chief Commissioner may of his own motion or on the application of any aggrieved person or otherwise look into complaints with respect to matters relating to-

¶67

(a) deprivation of rights of persons with disabilities;

¶68

(b) non-implementation of laws, rules, byelaws, regulations, executive orders, guidelines or instructions made or issued by the

¶69

-:5:-

¶70

WPC 1487/06

¶71

appropriate Governments and the local authorities for the welfare and protection of rights or persons with disabilities,

¶72

and take up the matter with the appropriate authorities”.

¶73

Thus the counsel for the petitioner vehemently

¶74

submitted that in view of Section 59 of the above Act, 4^th respondent was duty bound to consider the grievance of the petitioner and to examine his complaint so as to redress the grievance of the petitioner and similarly situated persons.

¶75

5.Going by Ext.P19, it appears that the 4^th respondent has considered only two aspects namely, the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of officers' cadre that was due during the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 and the second aspect considered was whether the petitioner was entitled to get promotion on the basis of reservation for persons with disabilities in cases of promotion from clerical to Officers' cadre. The finding of the 4^th respondent under the above two grounds are against the petitioner. On the

¶76

WPC 1487/06

¶77

-:6:-

¶78

strength of Sections 58 and 59, the learned counsel submitted that even though the issue considered was with respect to promotion to the post of Officer's cadre, either on merit or on the reservation, it was incumbent upon the 4^th respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to Group C post.

¶79

In the light of Sections 58 and 59, I am of the view that a duty is cast on the 4^th respondent to consider such claim either at the instance of the claimant or by suo motu which in this case was not done. There is no dispute that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to bring those claims before the concerned authority or the 4^th respondent at appropriate time. On a reading of Ext.P19 it appears that no such claim was preferred before the 4^th respondent . But on the basis of the facts made available by the petitioner to the 4^th respondent, the 4^th respondent should have considered the claim the petitioner for promotion to the post of Special Assistant coming under Group C, if he was

¶80

WPC 1487/06

¶81

-:7:-

¶82

otherwise eligible for the same. In the light of the above facts and circumstances , I am of the view that this matter can be remitted back to the 4^th respondent for fresh consideration regarding the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Special Assistant coming under Group C.

¶83

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of remitting the matter to the 4^th respondent and relegating the petitioner to approach the 4^th respondent by filing a detailed petition, setting forth his claim for due promotion and for consequential benefits, which shall be considered by the 4^th respondent on merit and dispose of the same within 3 months from the date of receipt of such representation and copy of this judgment.

¶84

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

kvm/-

WPC 1487/06

-:8:-

V.K.MOHANAN, J .

O.P.No.

JUDGMENT

Dated:..

K.P.Ramakrishna Panicker v. State Bank of Tranvancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Ramakrishna Panicker v. State Bank of Tranvancore

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

Jeevankumar Vs Kancor Flour and Extracts Ltd.

T.Abdul Quadir Vs Union of India

P. Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Mariyamma Abraham Vs Union of India

V.X.Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Indira Vs Kseb