.H . . . ..... i » ¢ T . . » .-~Mw“,. ggguqgJLmEOuu w‘umim m). I K 96 05‘ l9§fh ;Kamma, “son o£ iiéatewshri B.R.$hax~ o£f~ car Junlon Manaqemenm wraize Ba rldla, Re lav-DI, iie :Lonal 0ff10e,R2=;pu Gity ah31l an& 331str1c'h Ralpa (ha? ). , 1.: VER§ 7&3 [:— t . j RESPMu‘Ws- 1; mane Bank of mam, central oixlce,P Bot mo. T2, HEAL 2. E‘tatF Bank of lndia, fevsonual Eepartmewb 1 '’E‘i‘ IT IOEJ KY q ' i i § ‘ Local Head Uff’lce: Phola Poau, Bhopa;.u i e i 3. he Re wonal Baana er, “stame Earl: ohm/ lon—IV, Regionalwfuce, §hankar 331 n“ Raipux any, wahsil and m'striw Raipm . Vi , f, mwwwlcm, 226 o? 'mE cownwnwom e ama, 01233333 GR umvcmwm :Lahca? Lana Bistrlc‘t BHQP - ~R m, E ER : n ¥ ‘ i r I h w . mm u ”m . £4 TIE?~IC?i€ a Ngdé’it‘é’gg ... A9§ . 5ft ../’ i§P . $3. mMz‘zzzam, / 15. :as..&;.1.. ‘ z. ' wt‘iaaraz mam, .x s w wag, Mimi“ gzhammiw §3r$gam Miwv é», 1g.§.,' my‘zjagugezs, _ \ _"" :%:ammg:._m&§$wm. I 3Wwu¥§ 3a . 1am: mm; w. wwwhwesmw 7 wm?‘£w‘*m% » 7x4” ‘ " ‘a a‘grka‘, “Eifw‘. 5w. $"M§§aa. mgm wifém Wma $3: 93 ”a ara£$ 2%grsx. fii £§ii§ a» , @ " £¢:a§$§ aamw. 1 fh é ~ H , g a @ HEGH CGURT OF JUDICATURE CiiEATTISGARH: BILA§P§JR W. P. No. 1846 of 1984 Pe‘dtioner Versus Respondent State Baak oflndia 8a OtherS 0 R D E R ”B Post for 27 —2-’ZOD7 :L; .y/g r i :; J’S‘ar’ Satish K. Agnihotri HIGH COIJRT OF .3UDECATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hongbl‘e Shri Satish K. Agmmtzi, J. W. P. (s) Mo. 1845 of 1984 Petitioner ; R. K. Shama Versus Respondent : State Bank oflndia 8n oth€rs Mr. RS. Koshy, Advocate for tbs pctiu'o'ner, Mr. P. Diwakar, Senior Advocate wifh Mr. RR. Patankal‘, Advocats for the respondents. OREER {Passed on this iii‘iay of February, 2007} 1. By this petition tiled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ/direction to quash the circular PER/O/No. 19 of 1983 dated 15th November, 1983 (P11), the circular No. 32 of 1984, dated 27th June, 1984 (P/ 2), issued by the General Manager (Operations), State Bank of India, Personnel Department, Bhopal and the letter dated 4th July, 1994 (Pi 3) and furfher to restrain the respondents No. 1 and 2 holding from interviews andfor written test for the purpose of promotion of erstwhile Oliieer of Grade-I integrated into Junior Management Grade, Scale l to the Vacant posts on the Middle Management Grade II with consequential reliefs. f th 2. The indisputabk acts, in nutshell, am that 6 petitioner was mitially appointed as a Cashier on 7.2.1949 by the respondent~Bank. With the passage of t, the petitioner was ime further promoted to the post of Oiiicers Grade—II. By the order dated 1.8. 1973, the petitioner was confinned on the promoted post in the cadre of Ohicer Grade—II. As per the policy, the next omotion was to the post of OEice Middle Management Scale~H, pr r which was enied to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner filed the d instant etition for the rehefs aforestated. p (3/ , According to learned counsel appean'ng for the petitioner, no polic was formuiated by the respondent-Bank to absorb the Junior Management Grade Scale-1 to the post of Middle Management Grade Scale-H. On the basis of interview of eligible ofhcers, promotions were made to the Middle Management Grade Scale—II. Several officers were promoted with effect from 1.8.1981, thereafter, 1.8.1982 and 1.8.1983. The petitioner was completely ignored. In the meantime, e petitioner retired from service on th attaining the age of superannuation with enect from 31.8.86. Since, the petitioner has superannuated during pendency of this petition, which was med on 9th July, 1984, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not want to press any other ground, except that in lieu of the reliefs sought for in this petition, the petitioner should be paid sum lump~sum amount with interest as full and final settlement. y / 2% 4. Accordingly, this Court by the order dated 3.7.2006 granted four weeks time to both the panics for arriving at amicable settlement between the pwes, if any. Several adjournment were sought to reach to some conclusion. . Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the matter may be disposed ofwith a dilection to pay a sum of Rs. 65,000l- with intemst towards full and fined settlement of the dispute between the patties. He lastly submitted that the respondent—Bank is agmeable for the amount of Rs. 65,000] — with interest towards full and final settlement. Even otherwise, the petitioner has hled this petition on 9‘11 July, 1984 and thereafter, he retired horn service on 31.8.86. This petition- was pending for long period for more than 20 years. Thus, I am of the view that the justice would be subserved if the submission of the petitioner is w e accepted in accordance with law. Thus, the Iespondents are directed to pay a lump—sum of Rs. 65,000/- with interest @ 6% n‘om the day, the petitioner became entitled till the payment of the principal amount A . m3§pm . Accordingly, the respondents are directed to make the payment, as stated-above, within a period of eight weeks n‘om the date of receipt of a copy of this order. y\ “V“ "W \ Krw 7. The writ pet'tion is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge l“L . Bablu ‘maia