NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (NABARD) AND ANOTHER Vs. CHITA RANJAN PATNAIK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an intra Court appeal filed by the appellants challenging the judgment dated 27.04.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 15402 of 2012, by which the learned Single Judge has remitted the matter to the competent authority to consider the case of respondent no.1 and to take final decision in accordance with law for promotion to the post of Executive Director notionally within reasonable period, preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that respondent no.1 joined the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on 22.10.1971 and subsequently in the year 1979 he was selected as a Direct Recruit Officer in Grade-B (Manager) in the erstwhile ARDC, the then subsidiary of RBI, and then he joined in National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) after its formation in the year 1982. The respondent no.1, after working in various capacities, was promoted to the rank of Chief General Manager (CGM) in the year 2002. The next promotion due to the respondent no.1was in the rank of Executive Director. The selection committee convened a meeting to select two Executive Directors in the year 2011. The respondent no.1, being eligible for the same, his name was short listed at serial no.2, along with other three candidates. As against the candidate at serial no.1, since departmental cases were pending, his case was not considered. Consequently, the respondent no.1 ought to have been extended with the benefit of promotion by promoting him to the post of Executive Director, but the claim of the respondent no.1 was rejected in gross violation of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Staff) Rules, 1982.

(3.) The respondent no.1 filed writ application and the writ Court, after considering the grievance of respondent no.1, disposed of the same by judgment dated 27.04.2018 stating inter alia that the respondent no.1 cannot take the benefit of actual service even if he would be promoted to the post of Executive Director, since he has already retired from service w.e.f. 30.04.2011, but if he would be found to besuitable, certainly he would be entitled to get monetary benefit by getting the notional promotion, and therefore remitted the matter to the competent authority to consider the case of the respondent no.1 and to take final decision in accordance with law for promotion to the post of Executive Director notionally within reasonable period, preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Even though an objection was raised before the writ Court with regard to maintainability of the writ application against the NABARD, the answer was given in affirmative by learned Single Judge. Hence this application.