Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. PARTHIBAN, J.
Sulochana - Appellant
Versus
The General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai & Another - Respondent
W.P. No .15253 of 2020 & W.M.P. Nos .19078 to 19080 of 2020
Decided On : 06-12-2021
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Petitioner was selected by respondent and appointed as Probationary Officer - She requested respondents to transfer her to Bangalore Region in order to enable her to join her spouse - She was transferred - She had participated in promotion process and was a wait-listed candidate - She received promotion-cum-transfer order, transferring her back to previous Region - Since it was within one year from date of joining in Bangalore Region and also considering her family situation, she made a representation through e-mail to the respondents to retain her in Bangalore Region itself - She submitted a representation to respondents offering her willingness to forego promotion given to her - It was later found that she had wrongly received salary in promoted post, though she had not obeyed posting her for period in question and recovery was ordered - Respondents-IOB submitted petitioner had wrongly and illegally received pay package applicable to promoted post - Petitioner had declined promotion by herself - Payment was sought to be recovered and there is nothing wrong in action initiated by respondents-IOB towards recovery of excess payment made illegally to her – Held, Court is entirely in agreement with submissions made by respondents-IOB - Petitioner having been paid salary applicable to higher post, ought to have informed respondents on her own - She had appropriated excess amounts, which were not due and payable to her during relevant period - Instead of accepting wrong payments made to her, she has audaciously come up with present Writ Petition seeking to challenge the recovery order - Fact of matter is that petitioner has declined to accept promotion due to her family reasons and on other hand, she has received salary for promoted post, which she declined and refused to join transferred place - Petitioner cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate and she cannot be allowed to have cake and eat it too - Challenge in Writ Petition is to be discountenanced both in law and on facts - Writ Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to direct the respondents to call for the records in pursuant to the recovery order passed by the first respondent and issued through the second respondent through e-mail, dated 28.08.2020.)
1. This Writ Petition is filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to direct the respondents to call for the records in pursuant to the recovery order passed by the first respondent and issued through the second respondent through e-mail, dated 28.08.2020.
2. The petitioner herein was selected by the first respondent and was appointed as Probationary Officer at Nilagiirivattam Branch in Thanjavur Region on 08.07.2013. On 04.06.2017, she requested the respondents to transfer her to Bangalore Region in order to enable her to join her spouse. Accordingly, she was transferred to Bangalore Region and joined duty on 14.08.2017. She served in the respondents-Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) as Assistant Manager-I line. In the year 2018, she had participated in promotion process from JM-I to MM-II and was a wait-listed candidate. On 17.10.2018, she received promotion-cum-transfer order, transferring her back to Thanjavur Region. Since it was within one year from the date of joining in Bangalore Region and also considering her family situation, she made a representation through e-mail to the respondents on 20.10.2018, to retain her in Bangalore Region itself. However, she had not received any reply to her said representation and again, on 12.11.2018, she submitted a representation to the respondents offering her willingness to forego the promotion given to her on 17.10.2018 as MM-II.
3. It was later found that she had wrongly received the salary in the promoted post, though she had not obeyed posting her at Thanjavur for the period in question and recovery was ordered, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.
4. On notice, learned Standing Counsel entered appearance for the respondents-IOB and filed a detailed counter affidavit.
5. In the counter affidavit, the following averments are made denying the right of the petitioner to receive the salary in the promoted post. It is useful to extract paragraphs 7 to 10 of the counter affidavit:
8. On 29.10.2018 the petitioner gave a letter giving up her promotion which fact is very important and which letter has not been filed along with the Writ Petition. Therefore she continued to be at Bangalore. But unfortunately the Computer system was not updated and she was paid the salary and emoluments of MMGS II from 1.10.2018 and also the increment. This was noticed in July/August 2020. Therefore the Bank by communication dt.28.08.2020 informed that the payment made based on MMGS II was by mistake and excess payment would be deducted by instalments. At that stage she has approached this Hon'ble Court.
9. For the reasons best known, the Petitioner has failed to file the crucial document viz. her letter dt.29.10.2018 in which she had given up her promotion. That apart in the promotion order dt.17.10.2018 itself it was made clear that if she did not join duty at Tanjavur, the place of posting on promotion, the
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
