LAWS(PAT)-2016-7-165

ARUN KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE RAGHUBIR SINGH, R/O MANAHAR BASANT, P.S. Vs. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MAURYALOK, R BLOCK B 2ND FLOOR, P.S.

Decided On July 28, 2016
Arun Kumar Singh, S/O Late Raghubir Singh, R/O Manahar Basant, P.S. Appellant
V/S
The Central Bank Of India Through Its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Central Bank Of India, Mauryalok, R Block B 2Nd Floor, P.S. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal is from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.09.2010, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16337/2010 (Arun Kumar Singh Vs. The Central Bank of India and others) by which the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner was dismissed virtually in limine holding that he was not entitled to get the benefit of privilege leave (earned leave) though he has been paid full salary for the period in question.

(2.) We regret not to agree with the order of the learned Single Judge for the reasons recorded hereunder.

(3.) The writ petitioner-appellant was an employee in the Central Bank of India (for short the Bank). Pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding he was dismissed from service. His departmental appeal was also dismissed but ultimately this Court in a writ proceeding allowed the writ petition with a direction that he would be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. This was an order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10820 of 1992 being judgment dated 29.10.1997. It appears that the Bank though reinstated the writ petitioner-appellant and also granted him notional promotion, which was due during the period of his dismissal, but refused to grant him actual financial benefits for the said period. This forced the writ petitioner-appellant to file another writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 9487 of 2003 which was heard and allowed by judgment and order dated 10.07.2009 in which it was clearly held that when this Court in the first round of litigation held the dismissal to be wrong and directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits then it would be deemed as if the writ petitioner-appellant had never been dismissed and continued in service. That being so, mere grant of notional promotion serves no purpose. Accordingly, directions were issued to make full payment with regard to the promotional avenue as well. Orders passed in both the writ petitions attained finality.