The High Court dismissed the writ appeal of a retired bank employee seeking monetary benefits and promotion dates. The Court upheld the lower court's dismissal, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to benefits beyond those covered by unchallenged final orders modifying his punishment post-dismissal.
No order as to 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.No.514 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.514 of 2018
K.Subraya Kamath ... Appellant
-Vs-
... Respondents
1/10
W.A.No.514 of 2018
Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 11.12.2017 made in W.P.No.32100 of 2017 and allow the writ appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Udhayakumar For Respondents : Mr.V.J.Arul Raj
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This writ appeal has been directed against the order of the writ Court dated 11.12.2017 in W.P.No.32100 of 2017.
2/10
W.A.No.514 of 2018
and other allowances which shall not be paid to him, except the subsistence allowance already paid to him for the suspension period and he was not paid any salary for the period from the date of dismissal till the date of joining in service as a consequence of the said order, dated 11.10.1995.
3/10
W.A.No.514 of 2018
Mr.S.Udhayakumar, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the entitlement of his promotion from the year 2002 though has been accepted by the Bank, they have not extended the monetary benefits which ought to have been extended to him. Correspondingly, the further monetary benefits sought for in the said writ petition ought to have been allowed by the Bank. Since they have not allowed the same, it triggered the appellant / petitioner to approach this Court by filing the said writ petition which was not considered in proper perspective by the writ Court, therefore, he seeks indulgence of this Court.
4/10
W.A.No.514 of 2018
from 2002 is concerned, why such a promotion has not been given, why it was given to him in 2008 has been clearly stated in the communication dated 09.08.2016 by way of reply to his representation-cum-legal notice. Despite this communication of the Bank, having receipt of the same, none of this communication has been put under challenge and all of a sudden, he approached the writ Court to file a writ petition seeking mandamus as if that he was entitled to get all those benefits without getting any promotion and without challenging the order dated 11.10.1995 and it has become final. The benefits whatever have been allowed by the said order of the Bank dated 11.10.1995, that alone the petitioner would be entitled to and since that has been paid, no other benefits as sought for by the writ petitioner in the prayer can be granted. This aspect having been considered of course rightly by the learned Judge who dismissed the writ petition through the impugned order, hence it does not warrant any interference from this Court, he contended.
5/10
W.A.No.514 of 2018
the respondent Bank that, it is not the case where the charge have not been proved or it is not the case where the punishment has been set aside on the ground that, the charges framed against the delinquent appellant / petitioner has not been proved. It is the case where in the appeal or revision, the concerned authority has modified the punishment only on the ground of proportionality and accordingly, the modified punishment has been inflicted with conditions and this has been taken into account by the learned Judge in the order impugned which reads thus:
"2. On a perusal of typed set of papers filed in this Writ Petition, it is seen that the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 12.12.1994 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, against which, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, he moved Mercy Petition before the 1st respondent. While entertaining the Mercy Petition, the 1st respondent, evaluated the case in totality and after going through the records placed before him, had taken a sympathetic view and came to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service requires modification. Finally, by order dated 11.10.1995, the petitioner was reinstated in service with two conditions, and the operative portion of the said order read as under:-
"I, therefore, order that the punishment of Dismissal be modified to stoppage of his five annual increments with cumulative effect.
I further order that no difference of salary and other allowances shall be payable to him except for the subsistence
6/10
W.A.No.514 of 2018
allowance already paid to him for the suspension period. Further, he shall not be paid any salary for the period from the date of his dismissal till the date of joining his service as a consequence of this order. However, this period shall not be treated as break in his service.
Sh.K.Subraya Kamath is directed to report to Zonal Manager, Madras, for further duties. A copy of this order be sent to Sh.K.Subraya Kamath and another, Zonal Manager, Madras, for necessary compliance."
with condition admittedly has not been challenged by the appellant and the same has become final.
7/10
W.A.No.514 of 2018
orders passed in this regard by the Bank will hold the field, insofar as deciding what is the entitlement of the appellant / petitioner to get such financial benefits from the Bank as an erstwhile employee beyond which the appellant / petitioner cannot expect anything, therefore since the prayer sought for in the writ petition is beyond the scope of these orders as admittedly these orders have not been challenged, that position having been considered, the learned Judge decided to reject the writ petition which approach of the learned Judge cannot be found fault with, therefore, we do find no reason to interfere with the said order passed by the writ Court.
(R.S.K., J.) (K.B., J.) 24.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No
vji
8/10
W.A.No.514 of 2018
To
9/10
W.A.No.514 of 2018
R.SURESH KUMAR, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
vji
W.A.No.514 of 2018
24.08.2023
10/10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appellant is entitled to monetary benefits and retrospective promotion he failed to challenge in earlier proceedings regarding modified punishment.
Whether the High Court interference in a writ petition is warranted when the underlying orders have become final and unchallenged.
K.Subraya Kamath
The Chairman and Managing Director, Punjab and Sind Bank
The General Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, HRD Department
The Deputy General Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, HRD Department
The Zonal Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank
R.Suresh Kumar
K.Kumaresh Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
