SURENDRA KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE claim relates to alleged wrongful adjustment of 88 days of leave fair concession by a written communication dated 3.3.2004 at Annexure -5. The petitioner superannuated from service on 31.7.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate any legal remedy being pursued by the petitioner in that regard till the date of his superannuation. After his superannuation, the petitioner seems to have become serious about the matter when he claims to have met the authorities on 6.10.2007 who declined to accede to his request 'at this stage ' stating that it had been properly done based on various reports of the competent authority based on materials. Thereafter the petitioner filed a representation on 18.10.2007 followed by a reminder, reconsideration of which has been declined on 12/15.2.2008.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the order dated 3.3.2004, the petitioner had filed certain representations while he was in service. It is next urged that the writ petition is not belated as the authority has finally declined to reconsider the matter on 12/ 15.2.2008 by a non -speaking order.