Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
L. NARAYANA SWAMY, J.
T.R. Raghukumar - Appellant
Versus
Chairman & Managing Director Union Bank of India - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 50585 of 2012, 24577 of 2013, 519 of 2013
Decided On : 08-03-2019
Promotion - Disability - Section 47 of the Act - W.P.No.50585/2012, W.P.No.24577/2013, W.P.No.519/2013 - Section 47 of the Act - The court discussed the petitioner's claim for promotion, denial of promotion, and the requirement for promotion to SMGS IV. The court interpreted Section 47 of the Act and emphasized that promotion cannot be denied to a person merely on the ground of disability if the person is otherwise suitable for the post. The court also highlighted the eligibility criteria for promotion to SMGS IV, including satisfactory service, APAR marks, and computer literacy. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 47 and the petitioner's failure to meet the eligibility criteria for promotion.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought promotion, quashing of appraisal report, payment of salary, and other allowances. The petitioner was compulsorily retired and later reinstated, but claimed denial of promotion and delay in reinstatement. The bank contended that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria for promotion and failed to cooperate with the management.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petitions related to promotion and appraisal report, but directed the respondent to pay salary and allowances for the period of delay in reinstatement. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion due to failure to meet eligibility criteria, but was entitled to salary and allowances for the delay in reinstatement.
Issues: The issues included denial of promotion, denial of suitable work, and delay in reinstatement. The court addressed the petitioner's claim for promotion, denial of work, and delay in implementing the reinstatement order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 47 of the Act, the petitioner's failure to meet the eligibility criteria for promotion, and the delay in implementing the reinstatement order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions related to promotion and appraisal report, but directed the respondent to pay salary and allowances for the period of delay in reinstatement. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion due to failure to meet eligibility criteria, but was entitled to salary and allowances for the delay in reinstatement.
L. Narayana Swamy, J.
W.P. No.50585/2012 is filed seeking direction to the respondents to consider him for promotion as he cannot be denied promotion just on the ground of disability. W.P. No.24577/2013 is filed seeking to quash appraisal report and consequential communication and for a direction to award suitable remarks on the ground suitable work is not allotted and W.P.No.519/2013 is filed seeking direction to the respondents to pay salary and other allowances and other consequential benefits to the petitioner from 16.06.2010 to 7.11.2011 together with interest at 12% and to approve the pension as requested by him in his written representation dated 28.02.2012 as per Annexure-H in terms of Circular dated 27.8.2010 as per Annexure-J to the petition.
2. The case of the petitioner in all the three petitions which is more or less the same is that petitioner joined the respondent bank on 10.7.1978 as an Agricultural Field Officer and subsequently promoted to the post of MMGS-III on 01.01.1998, which is in the cadre of Senior Manager. When he was so working, a disciplinary proceedings was initiated on certain misconduct and after holding an enquiry, the 2nd respondent passed an order of penalty dated 31.08.2006 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority came to be rejected vide order dated 12.07.2007. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed W.P.No.20484/2007 which was partly allowed by the order dated 20.05.2010. The punishment imposed on the petitioner was modified by withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect and directed the respondent Bank to reinstate him for any suitable post having regard to his visual disability, holding him entitled for continuity of service and all consequential benefits but no back wages.
3. The Bank filed W.A. No.2617/2010 challenging the above order passed in the writ petition and petitioner also filed W.A. No.2631/2010 challenging denial of back wages. By the order dated 25.08.2011 both the appeals came to be dismissed.
4. The petitioner was ordered to be reinstated into service by the order dated 26.11.2011 during pendency of CCC(c) No.2076/2011, and in pursuance petitioner reported for duty on 08.12.2011.
5. The respondent's bank has published seniority list of officers in MMGS-III as of 01.12.2002 under Circular dated 06.12.2002 placing the petitioner at Sl.No.288. Petitioner submits that several officers who were promoted along with petitioner from MMGS-II to MMGS-III have been promoted to cadre of SMGS-IV on 21.06.2010. It is stated since the petitioner was out of service, question of considering his case for further promotion did not arise. It is case of the petitioner that after his reinstatement, respondents ought to have considered his case for promotion from MMGS-III to SMGS-IV by doing notional fixation.
6. It is stated, vide seniority list Annexure-H serial No.457 to 539 were promoted from MMGS-III to SMGS-IV on 21.06.2010 and thereafter several juniors to the petitioner from Sl.No.540 to 661 were promoted. In the month of June, 2012, the respondent bank conducted promotional process. In spite of receipt of his earlier letter, he was denied the promotion process held on 21.06.2010. The petitioner gave one more representation dated 22.09.2012 to the first respondent with a request to consider his case for promotion.
7. The respondents had published a revised promotional policy for officers on 11.08.2012. Chapter VI of the revised promotional policy deals with procedure with reference to the disciplinary criminal proceedings against the officers. Under clause 6.1(a) officers in respect of whom the punishment has been inflicted will not be eligible to participate in promotional process for a period of one year from the date of infliction of the said penalty. The punishment order of compulsory retirement, which is modified to withholding of three annual increments by the order dated 20.5.2010, got com
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
