IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20589 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 25.01.2010 Ramesh Kumar ....Petitioner versus The Yamuna Nagar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Yamuna Nagar and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Ravindra Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. In a list of promotees released by the 2nd respondent- Managing Director of a Cooperative Bank, the petitioner felt himself sidelined and has filed the writ petition to quash the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by the Managing Director, and seeks for favourable consideration for promotion from the post of Peon to Clerk. The basis of the grievance is that the respondents 4 and 5, who had been juniors to the petitioner, have been promoted and the petitioner has not been included in the list of promotees. 2. It is the admitted position that the rules of service of persons working in the 1st respondent Bank are governed by the Haryana State Central Cooperative Banks Staff Service Government Cadre Rules of Civil Writ Petition No.20589 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - 1975. In my view, the grievance of the petitioner could be redressed only as per the scheme provided under the rules. Rule 31 of the Government Cadre Rules makes provision for appeals. Rule 31(1)(2) relate to appeals imposing penalty and Rule 31(3) reads as follows:- “Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules appeal against the decision of Managing Director shall be to Managing Committee and to the Registrar, where the decision has been taken by the Managing Committee. No appeal shall be entertained under this clause unless it is made within 60 days from the date of the order. No appeal shall lie under this rule against any decision or order made by an authority in appeal.” From the reading of the above rule, it is clear that it saves situation of residuary character and affords to an aggrieved person a right to challenge a decision of the Managing Director by appealing to the Registrar. The contention of the petitioner that the provision for an appeal is available only with reference to actions imposing penalty under Rule 27 is, in my view, not correct. The expression “Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules” addresses a situation of wider amplitude and the petitioner shall have appropriate alternative remedy by preferring an appeal to the Registrar. Rule 31(3) itself provides for a period of 60 days and considering the fact that the impugned order was pronounced on 25.11.2009, the time for preferring an appeal has already been expired. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner was agitating a claim before this Court, it is directed that the Registrar shall entertain the appeal within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and pass appropriate orders on the merits of Civil Writ Petition No.20589 of 2009 (O&M) - 3 - contentions that may be raised by the petitioner. Granting this liberty to the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.01.2010. sanjeev