IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1288 of 1995 1 THE ZONAL MANAGER,CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, 22ND FLOOR, BLOCK-B MORTY LOK COMPLEX, PATNA. 2. THE DY. GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, NARIMAN POINT, BOMBAY-21........................................... Appellants Versus 1 .KISHORE KUMAR DAS , SON OF SHRI BHARAT LAL DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- OLIPUR, P.S. BHAIRAV STHAN, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI 2. VIJAY KUMAR, SON OF SHRAYODHYA PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT OF KAYASTHA TOLI, CHIRAYANTAR, RAM NAGAR ROAD, KANKARBAGH, P.S. KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT- PATNA 3 .SITA RAM PRASAD, SON OF SRI RAM BRIKSH CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF KILA ROAD, P.S. PATNA CITY, DISTRICT- PATNA. 4. SUNIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI BACHCHU PRASAD, RESIDENT OF KILA ROAD, KHOKHUNA, P.S. KARAI PARSHURAI, DISTRICT- NALANDA. 5. SANJAY KUMAR DUBEY, SON OF PANCHANAND DUBEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHAKRI, P.S. DARAULI, ISTRICT - SIWAN. 6. PRAYAG PASWAN, SON OF SHRI SHIV NARAYAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF SABARCHAK, P.S. NAUBATPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA. 7. UPENDRA KUMAR ANIL, SON OF SHRI KEDAR NATH SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RANHIL, P.S. EKANGAR SARAI, DISTRICT- NALANDA. 8. SUBODH KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI SHEO SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF CHIRAGEFAR, BUDH NAGAR , R.N. NO.1, PATNA, P.S. KANKAR BAGH, PATNA. 9. BRAJESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI YADUNANDAN CHOUDHARY, FRIEND’S COLONY, PAKARI, ARRAH, P.S. NAWADAH, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR. 10. PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SHRI SHYAM KISHORE SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PANSHALA, P.S. BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. 11. PRANESH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SRI MOHAN PRASAD SINHA,RESIDENT OF 61- ANANDPUR, P.S. BORING CANAL ROAD, DISTRICT PATNA. 12 JAI PRAKASH SON OF SHRI OM PRAKASH LAL, - 2 - RESIDENT OF CHUTKIYA BAZAR, P.S. PATNA CITY, DISTRICT PATNA. 13. BIBHUTI BHUSHAN JHA SON OF LATE P.R. JHA, GOSAIN GAON, P.S. GOPALPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR (PETITIONERS IN THE WRIT PEJTITION) 14. THE BANKING SERVICE RECRUITMENT BOARD, 17- PATLIPUTRA COLONY, P.S. PATLIPUTRA COLONY, DISTRICT AND TOWN PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY. 15. THE CHAIRMAN, BANKING SERVICE RECRUITMENT BOARD, 17- PATLIPUTRA COLONY, P.S. PATLIPUTRA, DISTRICT AND TOWN- PATNA.............RESPONDENT. ------------ 4 01-04-2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment and order of the writ court under appeal. The appellant who is Zonal Manager of Central Bank of India feels aggrieved by the direction given by the writ Court to the effect that the writ petitioners will be entitled to count their services from the date on which they would have been normally appointed on the basis of the recommendation of the Banking Service Recruitment Board for the purpose of pensionary benefits and inter se seniority as well as fixation of pay-scale etc. but they would not be entitled to any monetary benefit for the period during which they have not worked. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even though the writ court has made it clear that no monetary benefit is payable to the writ petitioners for the period they have actually not worked, the aforesaid direction would entitle them to monetary benefits as soon as they start working because they have been given a notional date of appointment with effect from the date on which they would have been normally appointed. It was further submitted that the writ petitioners could not be appointed at the normal time on account of certain - 3 - Naresh directions of higher authorities such as Reserve Bank of India and when those directions were modified then the appointment process was resumed, as a result of lifting of the embargo on the appointment . So far as writ petitioners are concerned, it is not the case of the appellant that they were at any kind of fault leading to delay in their appointment beyond the normal period. The embargo on appointment was an internal matter of the concerned authority and for that the writ petitioners, in the facts of the case, have rightly been protected from any kind of continuing legal injury by asking the Bank to treat them to be notionally appointed from the date on which they would have been normally appointed. The direction protects justice and equity and requires no interference. The appeal is found to be without any merit. It is, therefore, dismissed. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J)