J.C. Grover vs Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant.

This appeal is directed against an order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 1181/2016. The operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge reads as follows :

“9. Considering the nature of dispute and also considering the fact that the matter is pending since 2016 and tenor & texture of the order would show that the order has not been passed in just, proper and reasonable manner, the impugned order dated 9.3.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 is hereby set- aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent-Bank to consider the case of the petitioner afresh subject to the petitioner files documents and produces evidence in line with para-8 of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.560 of 2011 and 25 of 2012 within a period of 30 days and that will be considered and disposed of by further 30 days after hearing the parties.”

The service of the petitioner, as officer of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, was terminated by an order dated 16.04.2005. The said order was set aside by an order of this Court dated 28.11.2011 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 587/2008. However, in lieu of back-wages, compensation of Rs. 70,000/- was granted, as against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal, registered as Writ Appeal No. 560/2011. Against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.11.2011, the Bank also preferred an appeal, registered as Writ Appeal No. 25/2012. Both the appeals were dismissed by an order dated 04.12.2014. Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid order dated 04.12.2014, reads as follows :

“8. If the appellant files an application before the respondent authorities and produces evidence with regard to the fact that he was no gainfully employed from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, without prejudice to the rights of the respondent-Bank to hold an enquiry in the matter, if they are satisfied of his status, as claimed, they shall consider the claim for back wages accordingly.”

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a representation on 01.01.2015 and the same came to be rejected by an order dated 09.03.2016, which was made the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, out of which, this writ appeal arises.

Mr. Kesharwani submits that the learned Single Judge did not consider the materials on record in its proper perspective and instead of remanding the matter to the Bank, ought to have decided the issue regarding payment of back-wages.

The learned Single Judge found that the order, rejecting the representation dated 01.01.2015, cannot be sustained in law and taking that view, had directed the Bank to consider and pass appropriate orders as noted in paragraph-9 of the order extracted supra.

We are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is reasonable and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly, we find no good ground to interfere with the same. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.