HANUMANTHA RAO V Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice issued by 1st respondent to the effect that the petitioner had taken voluntary retirement from the Bank as published in Eenadu Paper dated 30-7-1992 as illegal and for a direction to permit him to join as Clerk in the respondents-Punjab National Bank, hereinafter referred to as "Bank" in short, with all consequential benefits and other suitable orders.

(2.) It is stated by the writ petitioner that he had joined the services of the Bank in the year 1975 as Attender and was promoted as Clerk in the year 1981 and worked as Clerk at various places from 1981 to 1992 and had been discharging his duties to the best of his ability and to the satisfaction of his superiors. It is further stated that while he was working as Clerk at Nizamabad he fell sick and applied for leave for 15 days i.e., from 3-10-1991 and as he could not recover immediately as he was suffering from Jaundice he had extended the leave upto 30-7-1992 from time to time. It is further stated that along with his leave application he had submitted the change of address and leave address also and when he had extended leave for the first time he had submitted Doctor's certificate It is further stated that there was no notice or communication from the Bank received by the petitioner refusing his leave and hence he was under the bonafide impression that he had been granted leave applied for and to his surprise he came across the paper publication dated 30-7-1992 stating that notices were sent to his address calling upon him to join duty which were returned to the Bank with endorsement that the addressee was not available and hence it should be deemed that he had taken voluntary retirement from the said date. It is further stated that the writ petitioner had sent several representations explaining his stand, but unfortunately in spite of several representations and also Appeal to the 2nd respondent dated 5-11-1992, his request was not considered and hence the Writ Petition for the reliefs prayed for supra.

(3.) A counter-affidavit in detail was filed wherein all the details had been narrated and a specific stand was taken that the writ petitioner had been highly irregular and the past conduct also reveals the same and as far as the present action is concerned, it was taken in accordance with the Bipartite Settlement and there is no illegality or infirmity.