G KALYAN SUNDARAM Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : The petitioner, in this application, has inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs :-

(2.) The facts of this case, shortly stated, are as follows :- The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk by the respondent bank in 1966 and in the year 1977 he was promoted to the Officers' Cadre. The petitioner became a cardiac patient in 1984 when he was posted at Madras. His 9 years old daughter also became a patient of Artherities and both of them had to undergo a long treatment at Appollo Hospital, Madras. At that time the petitioner was directed by the bank to perform rural service. The petitioner, in order to carry on his treatment and the treatment of his daughter requested the bank to keep him at Madras city, which was turned down by the bank. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the bank to revert him as a Clerk. On 9.12.87 the Zonal Officer, Madras, of the respondent-bank reverted the petitioner to clerical job under certain terms, which will appear from Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court praying for issuance of a writ quashing the said reversion order. On 22.8.91 the said writ petition was disposed of by directing the bank to promote the petitioner to Officers' Cadre prospectively. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was disposed of on 16.9.91 by directing the respondent bank to consider his representation relating to extend protection of seniority to the petitioner. However, the respondent bank promoted the petitioner as Assistant Manager without giving seniority or pay protection and posted him at Jamshedpur, Bihar. Thereafter, the petitioner made repeated representations, which were of no avail and on 2.1.93 the respondent no. 2 issued the impugned order from Calcutta offering notional seniority from 1.10.1977 without any right to protection of pay and any consequential benefit.

(3.) The respondent's contention, however, is that keeping in view the decision of the Madras High Court this application is barred under the principles of res indicate. The learned Counsel in support of his aforementioned contention has relied on Smt. Pujari Bai etc. Vs. Madan Gopal (dead) L.Rs. viz Smt. Jaiwanti & Ors., reported in AIR 1989 SC 1764. It was further submitted that the petitioner took his chance before the Madras High Court whereafter he was transferred to Bihar. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation which has been rejected by the Calcutta Office of the respondent bank. It is submitted, in this situation, such practice should not be allowed by this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.