PRAMOD THAKUR Vs. PALAMAU KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievances of the petitioner is that the respondents have not taken any decision despite his repeated representations for release of full salary for the period of his suspension from 23.8.1991 to 14.6.1995 in view of the Rule 29(2)(b) of Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulation,1980 as also the regulation of 2001, even though the petitioner has been acquitted of all the criminal charges by the concerned Trial Court vide judgment dated 23.7.2004 annexed as Annexure -6 to the writ petition. Rule 29 of 2001 regulation which is at Annexure -11/1 is quoted herein below: -

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the respondents are obliged to follow the provisions of Regulation of 2001 applicable to the Bank which have been notified upon the approval of the Central Government and the circular which are operative cannot be said to override the Regulation which -2 - have higher legal force.

(3.) IN these circumstance, without observing anything on the merit of the case the matter is remanded to the respondent no. 2 - General Manager, Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank now Vananchal Gramin Bank, Daltonganj to consider the representations of the petitioner already pending before him in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 12 weeks, thereafter, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. In case the claim of the petitioner is found genuine and legally admissible, the same shall be paid within 8 weeks, thereafter.