THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.16587 OF 2000 DATED 31ST OCTOBER, 2011 BETWEEN Yelamanchili Venkateswara Rao …Petitioner And The District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Represented by its General Manager, Door No.58-14-57/1, Marripalem, VUDA Layout, N.H.5 Road, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam-9 and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.16587 OF 2000 ORDER: The petitioner, an Assistant General Manager in the District Co- operative Central Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam, the first respondent, was sent on deputation to the Kanakamahalakshmi Co-operative Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam, the second respondent, under proceedings dated 06.05.1999. The deputation was for a period of two years and was subject to the conditions enumerated therein. One of the conditions was to the effect that if the second respondent Bank wished to surrender the petitioner’s services, it should give three months notice. The second respondent Bank broadly agreed to this arrangement under its letter dated 09.05.1999. While so, it appears that the petitioner applied to the second respondent Bank under letter dated 02.06.2000 seeking to be relieved and asking for his services to be surrendered to his parent organization. Acting thereupon, the second respondent Bank issued relieving certificate dated 16.06.2000, wherein it recorded that its Board of Directors had resolved to repatriate the services of the petitioner to his parent Bank. However, when the petitioner submitted his joining report to the first respondent Bank on 17.06.2000, the first respondent Bank did not permit him to join duty. Disputes ensued between the Banks as to compliance with the terms of the deputation, whereby the poor petitioner became the unwitting pawn and was cast out by both Banks. In spite of legal measures being initiated, he was not taken back in service. He accordingly filed the present writ petition assailing the action of the first respondent Bank in not giving him posting orders pursuant to his joining report dated 17.06.2000 and in not paying him salary since July, 2000. By order dated 10.04.2001, this Court directed the respondents to take the petitioner into service forthwith and to continue to pay him salary. There was however an interim stay in so far as payment of arrears was concerned. Pursuant to the aforestated order, the first respondent Bank admitted the petitioner into service on 01.05.2001. However, he resigned from service thereafter on 01.01.2002. Pursuant to the amendment of his prayer in the writ petition, permitted by this Court by order dated 24.08.2006 in WPMP No.20315 of 2003 filed in the writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the respondents either jointly or severally, to pay him arrears of salary for ten months, viz. from July, 2000 to April, 2001, with consequential increments, gratuity, etc. along with interest. Heard Smt.N (P) Anjana Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.S.Ramchandra Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent Bank and Smt.Bobba Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel for the second respondent Bank. The facts narrated supra demonstrate that pursuant to the arrangement between the two Banks, the petitioner was sent on deputation for a period of two years. The conditions of deputation required the second respondent Bank to give three months notice in the event his services were to be surrendered. Admittedly, there was violation of this condition as the second respondent Bank, acting upon the petitioner’s letter dated 02.06.2000, issued relieving certificate dated 16.06.2000 without giving the requisite notice. In view of this violation, it appears that the first respondent Bank refused to take him back in service and insisted that the second respondent Bank should continue to utilize his services for the agreed period of two years. Owing to this dispute between the two Banks, the petitioner had to forego employment from July, 2000 upto April, 2001. It was only pursuant to the order passed in this writ petition that the petitioner was taken back in service by the first respondent Bank in May, 2001. The only issue that survives for consideration presently is with regard to the petitioner’s entitlement to salary from July, 2000 to April, 2001, during which period he was kept out of service owing to the conflict between the two Banks. The petitioner was clearly not to blame for the violation of deputation conditions by the second respondent Bank. Further, as he was the actual employee of the first respondent Bank, it ought not to have kept him out of service after the second respondent Bank repatriated him. Any issue that the first respondent Bank may have had with the second respondent Bank could have been resolved independently without adversely affecting the petitioner. However, that was not the course adopted and owing to this tussle between the two Banks, the petitioner lost out on his services for nearly ten months. He is therefore clearly entitled to salary for this period. As both the Banks were equally responsible for this imbroglio, it would meet the ends of justice if they are made to share the liability in this regard. The salary of the petitioner from July, 2000 to April, 2001 shall accordingly be paid by the respondent Banks jointly and in equal share with interest at the rate of 6% (six percent) per annum within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 31ST OCTOBER, 2011. VGSR/PGS