Writ Appeal challenging the dismissal of a petition for quashing a rejection order regarding non-promotion and seeking refixation of pay and pension.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.(MD).No.844 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 19.11.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 20.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A.(MD).No.844 of 2020
C.Rengaraj ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, College Lane, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondent/Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of the Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.6099 of 2018 dated 21.10.2019.
Prayer in WP(MD). 6099/ 2018 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned letter of the respondent dated 09/02/2018 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondent to refix the pay on notional promotions along with all other benefits including allowances and revise the pension on refixation of pay and issue the arrears for the same.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Rengaraj Party-in-Person For Respondent : Mr.M.Ponniah Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN,J.)
This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order, dated 21.10.2019 passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.6099 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2018.
1/4
W.A.(MD).No.844 of 2020
2/4
W.A.(MD).No.844 of 2020
from scale-V to scale-VI respectively. The said statement given by the respondent is false and without any materials. He has also placed reliance on several judicial pronouncements and the learned Single Judge fails to consider the same. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the appellant was not considered for promotion because he has not come under the zone of consideration for promotion and he was denied. During the service period, he has not challenged the same. He retired from service on attaining superannuation in the year 2004, whereas he has made a representation for promotion only in the year of 2018 which is only for notional promotion. In Banking services, the promotion is not automatic. It is based on the performance of the officers. The petitioner has not scored upto the level of consideration for promotion. Therefore, promotion was not given and even in 1990 and 1993, his name was not considered for promotion. The appellant should have challenged the same. The appellant had kept quiet for several years fully aware of the fact that his performance was not satisfactory for being considered for promotion to the next level. The appellant simply kept quiet during his service period and filed the writ petition after nearly two decades. The reasons stated in the appeal and the writ petition, are not legally sustainable and there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. Perused the records.
3/4
W.A.(MD).No.844 of 2020
only after 14 years from the date of retirement and 25 years from the date of denial of promotion from Scale-III to Scale-IV, the appellant is not entitled to the relief sought for on the ground of delay and laches and further, the appellant has not established that the denial of the promotion is arbitrary and not able to substantiate the ground of non-consideration of the promotion is arbitrary and therefore, under these circumstances, there is no merit in this writ appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.
Assistant Registrar (CS II)
// True Copy //
/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
pnn
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, College Lane, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.
+1 CC to M/s.M.PONNIAH, Advocate ( SR-1822[F] dated 20/01/2022 ) W.A.(MD).No.844 of 2020
20.01..2022
MGJ(01.02.2022) 4P 3C
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a retired bank employee entitled to relief against denial of promotion when challenge is filed after a long delay?
Whether the appellant established that the denial of promotion was arbitrary under the circumstances?
C. Rengaraj
The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, College Lane, Nungambakkam, Chennai
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
P. VELMURUGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
