IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17938 of 2010 DHIRENDRA KUMAR VERMA, SON OF LATE UDAY PRASAD VERMA, RESIDENT OF 91, NEW SBI OFFICERS’ COLONY, DIGHA GHAT, P.S. DIGHA, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, CORPORATE OFFICE, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI. 2. CHIEF GENRAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, NEAR GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. 3. GENERAL MANAGER, PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, NEAR GANGHI MAIDAN, PATNA. For the petitioner : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate. For the S.B.I. : Mr. Kaushlendra Kr. Sinha, Advocate. ----------- 02. 03.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State Bank of India(hereinafter referred to as the Bank) who prays for time to file counter affidavit but considering the nature of the order which this Court is proposing to pass, such request is refused. 2. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court on three occasions, last being in C.W.J.C. No.9483 of 2001, which was permitted to be withdrawn under orders dated 26.7.2001, Annexure-9 so as to enable the petitioner to file petition before the authority of the Bank for supply of reason for not promoting him in MMG Scale-II with effect from 1.8.1985, the date on which he became eligible for promotion in the said scale. Order dated 26.7.2001, Annexure-9 was passed in presence of the counsel for the Bank who had no objection to the aforesaid request of the petitioner for withdrawal of the writ case with liberty to file petition before the authority of the `Bank for supply of reason for not promoting him. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the light of the liberty granted by this Court under orders dated 26.7.2001 - 2 - petitioner filed representations dated 3.2.2001, 1.8.2002, Annexures-10 and 11 addressed to the Chief General Manager of the Bank. It is further submitted that as the order disposing of the two representations of the petitioner was not received by him, he filed application under the Right to Information Act seeking result of his two representations. 4. Having considered the request of the petitioner under Right to Information Act, the appellate authority of the Bank has conveyed the petitioner order dated 5.3.2010, Annexure-13 and counsel for the Bank states that perusal of order dated 5.3.2010 would indicate that the two representations of the petitioner have been disposed of indicating reasons for not promoting him in the MMG Scale-II. 5. Having perused the order dated 5.3.2010, Annexure-13 passed by the Chief General Manager of the Bank and first appellate authority under the Right to Information Act, it does not appear to me that the reasons for not promoting the petitioner in the MMG Scale-II with effect from 1.8.1885 has been indicated therein. Accordingly, I direct the petitioner to furnish fresh typed copy of his aforesaid two representations dated 3.2.2001 and 1.8.2002, Annexures-10 and 11 to the Chief General Manager of the Bank, who should dispose of the same, as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)