SHRI KALIPADA MAITY Vs. CONTAI CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the petitioner, who has been working as sub-accountant in Contai Co-operative Bank Ltd., Costal has challenged the legality, propriety and the validity of the order of the respondent No. 1 in giving promotion to the private respondent Nos. 6 to 8 as Branch Manager ignoring the claim of the writ petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in the respondent-bank on probation with effect from 1.11.1972 lathe scale of pay of Rs. 125-325.00 Per Month plus House Rent Allowance and Medical Allowance as admissible from time to time by the back. The petitioner was communicated vide Memo No. 14 dated 13th Sept., 1997 by the respondent-bank informing him that he was promoted in the post of Field Officer III (Development) in the scale of pay of Rs. 200-505.00 with effect from 15th Sept., 1977.

(3.) It has been claimed by the petitioner that since the time of his appointment, he has been discharging his duty sincerely, faithfully and with utmost satisfaction of the employer and there was no adverse remarks communicated to him by the respondent-back. So, therefore, on 26th Sept., 1988, the Bank had informed the petitioner to officiate as Branch Manager looking to the service record, efficiency and also his other performance. The petitioner was getting salary at the rate of Rs. 4064.50p. Per Month at the time of filing of the case. The petitioner has, Inter alia, alleged that he learned that some other employees namely private respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 have been promoted to the post of Branch Manager who were junior to him. Therefore, he made over a representation to the respondent-bank indicating his grievance by pointing out irregularities in giving the promotion to the private respondents. But, it is claimed by the petitioner that the bank was callous and non-responsive to the representation submitted by he petitioner. His further grievance is that even though he possessed comparatively better academic carrier than the other private respondents, but the respondent-bank has overlooked such qualification and also the service record and illegally had given promotion to the private respondents.