LAWS(P&H)-2010-10-198

GURDIAL SINGH Vs. AMBALA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD

Decided On October 27, 2010
GURDIAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage itself.

(2.) The petitioner was employee of respondent No. 2 --Naneloa Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd. where he worked as Clerk/ Salesman right from 1979. The employee of the Society could be promoted to the post of B Grade Secretary in respondent No. 1-Bank by way of promotion, for which 50% posts were reserved. It is alleged that the petitioner, despite being at Sr. No. 6 in the seniority list, was ignored for such promotion and persons at Sr. Nos. 33 and 155 of the Seniority List, namely, Jeet Ram and Rohtash Singh, respectively were promoted as B Grade Secretary vide Resolution dated 6th July, 2005, The petitioner being aggrieved of his non-consideration for promotion filed a statutory appeal before the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Haryana. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 5th June. 2008 and the petitioner was ordered to be promoted retrospectively with effect from the date his juniors named above were so promoted. On the basis of the order passed by the Registrar, respondent No. 1---Bank promoted the petitioner vide order dated 21st August. 2008 (Annexure P-2) granting him retrospective promotion. The relevant part of the order dated 21st August. 2008 granting retrospective promotion is reproduced here under:

(3.) When the petitioner did not receive the back wages on account of his restrospecitve promotion, he served legal notice for release of salary from the date of his promotion. The legal notice was replied to by respondent No. 1 vide reply dated 18th June, 2009 sent through Advocate (Annexure P-5). In the reply (Annexure P-5) the petitioner has been denied the back wages from the dale of promotion i.e. 6th July. 2005 to 10th September, 2008 applying the principle of "No Work No Pay". It is against the aforesaid action of the respondents that the petitioner has filed this petition.