LALIT KUMAR ARORA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is working as an officer in the Junior Management Grade Scale I with the Punjab National Bank, prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant him "one more increment. . . . for passing Part II of CAIIB examination with retrospective effect from 23. 2. 1996, with interest @ 18% per annum. . . . ' He also prays that the orders granting him only one increment and rejecting his claim for the grant of two increments, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P-2 and P. 4 with the writ petition, be quashed. The undisputed facts may be briefly noticed.

(2.) THE petitioner had joined service as a Clerk with the Respondent-Bank on March 2, 1981. White working as such, he had passed the CAIIB Part I examination on May 8, 1985. He was promoted as on Officer in the Junior Management Grade Scale I on December 8, 1986. He passed the CAIIB Part II examination on February 23, 1996. Vide order dated October 1, 1996, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition, the petitioner was informed that a special increment has been granted to him for passing the CAIIB Part Ii examination w. e. f. February 23, 1996 (wrongly typed as February 23, 1995 ). The petitioner represented to claim that he was entitled to the grant of two increments as had been sanctioned in the case of Mr. Niranjan Singh who is junior to him. This representation was rejected vide order dated November 9, 1996 by which the petitioner was informed that he is entitled to only one increment. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in granting him only one increment and in rejecting his request for the grant of two increments, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the Bank and its officers viz. respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is maintained that the action of the Bank is in conformity with the provisions of the statutory regulations and the instructions consequently, it has been prayed that the writ petition be dismissed with costs. The petitioner has filed a replication to reiterate his claim.