R.R.YADAV
PRADEEP KUMAR DIXIT – Appellant
Versus
URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. – Respondent
( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
( 2 ) WITH the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner I have gone through the order impugned dated 4. 12. 2001, Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
( 3 ) DURING the course of argument, Sri S. C. Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 brought to my notice the appointment letter of the petitioner appointing him on the post of Secretary from perusal of which it is evident that he was appointed as officiating secretary due to sudden demise of Sobran Lal Chaturvedi in a stop gap arrangement till further order of the appointing authority. The aforesaid officiating appointment of the petitioner on the post of Secretary has been approved by the Committee of Management vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition dated 5. 6. 2001. It is held that terms and conditions stipulated in the appointment letter of the petitioner are binding upon him. The petitioner cannot be allowed to claim benefits beyond the terms and conditions stipulated in his appointment letter which he has accepted with his open eyes.
( 4 ) FROM the averments made in the writ petition and also from the argument raised by the learned
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.