SHOBAVATHI ALIAS P SHOBHA SURESH Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 1/2014 for early hearing is allowed. With consent of learned counsel on both sides, matter is taken up for final disposal. Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 26.02.1979 in the respondent - Bank, under the General Merit category. Caste Verification Committee issued notice to the petitioner to show cause, why action should not be taken to terminate her service, on the ground that the caste to which she belongs was no more a Scheduled Caste. Despite reply submitted by the petitioner that she was appointed under the General Merit category and she is entitled to continue in service, the Caste Verification Committee, on 05.11.2001, cancelled the caste certificate issued by the petitioner without granting an opportunity of hearing. The respondent terminated the service of the petitioner on 18.01.2002, based on the decision rendered by the Caste Verification Committee on 05.11.2001. An appeal filed by the petitioner questioning the order of cancellation of caste certificate was rejected on 06.09.2004. W.P. No. 42835/2004 filed by the petitioner against the said orders was allowed in part and the impugned orders were quashed. However, the order of termination passed by the Bank was not quashed. RP. No. 7058/2005 filed was allowed on 14.03.2006, by holding that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement. WA. No. 807/2006 filed by the petitioner claiming back wages was dismissed by reserving liberty to approach the Bank and thereafter the appropriate authority. A representation was submitted by the petitioner on 29.08.2007 to pay full backwages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement and the same was rejected on 09.10.2007. WP. No. 4932/2008 filed by the petitioner was allowed on 04.03.2011, holding that the reinstatement of the petitioner relates back to 12.01.2002 and in the circumstances, she is entitled for continuity of service and consequential benefits with effect from 12.01.2002. The said order having attained finality, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 16.06.2011 claiming all monetary benefits. A remainder having been submitted on 03.08.2011, the respondent has issued an endorsement dated 11.04.2012 stating that the petitioner is not entitled to any arrears of pay, medical benefits, LFC, PL with effect from 12.01.2002. However, she was informed that she is entitled for four stagnation increments. Petitioner having submitted representation dated 18.06.2012 seeking to extend to her the monetary benefits which she is due to receive from the Bank and that there was a mistake in calculating the benefits due, the respondent by a communication dated 19.07.2012 has opined that the chart submitted by the petitioner is not in order and she is eligible to get three stagnation increments from 01.07.2008 and whatever benefits granted to her is in order. Assailing the said communications vide Annexures - F and H, this writ petition was filed.

(2.) Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the writ petition record.

(3.) W.P. No. 4932/2008 filed by the petitioner to direct the respondent to make payment of full backwages to which she is entitled to by considering the representation dated 29.08.2007 was disposed of following the decisions (Union of India & others v. Jaipal Singh, 2004 AIR(SC) 1005) and (Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar, (Gujarat) and another, 1997 AIR(SC) 1802) by holding that the reasoning of the respondent in the impugned order denying backwages is in accordance with law. However, it was held as follows: