Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 214 (KAR)

C. DODDAPPA v. TUNGABADRA GRAMIN BANK, BELLARY

2002-03-15

R.GURURAJAN

body2002
R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, an officer in Tungabadra Gramin Bank, Gabbur, is challenging annexure-H bearing No. PW STF PER 345/96-97, dated 25-5-1996 passed by respondent 1, and communication bearing No. PW IR 4779/1999-2000, dated 30-12-1999, Annexure-L and the order dated 28-12-1999, Annexure-L1 in this petition. ( 2 ) PETITIONER was working as a Branch Manager in the respondent 1-Bank. He met with an accident on 24-12-1988 while on duty. He was hospitalised on more than one occasion. He remained absent from duty for a total period of 498 days. The absence was regulated by the Bank as follows:"1. 26-12-1988 to 28-1-1989, 34 days sick leave on half pay; 2. 29-1-1989 to 16-3-1989, 47 days privilege leave; 3. 17-3-1989 to 22-12-1989, 281 days extraordinary leave on loss of pay; 4. 7-3-1990 to 20-7-1990, 136 days". ( 3 ) RESPONDENT 1 is sponsored by the Canara Bank which is a nationalised bank. In the Canara Bank the period of absence when injury or accident occurs to an employee when he is performing Bank's duties and the mishap is not attributable to any negligence on the part of the employee, the absence of the employee is treated as special leave to which full benefits are provided. Annexure-A is produced in support of this. ( 4 ) PETITIONER states that an award has been passed by the National industrial Tribunal and in terms of the award, petitioner is eligible for the benefits. Petitioner in the light of this award made a representation on 4-1-1994. Annexure-C is an endorsement stating therein that there is no provision to treat the period as on duty. Petitioner made one more representation dated 5-3-1994 in terms of Annexure-D and the same came to be rejected by the Bank. One more representation dated 22-6-1994 is made by the petitioner in terms of Annexure-E. Another representation followed in terms of Annexure-G, dated 17-7-1995. A communication dated 25-5-1996 is issued by the respondent rejecting his request in the matter. Petitioner filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 14110 of 1997. The said petition was disposed of by this Court. This Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal. Appeal was filed by the petitioner in terms of Annexure-K. Annexures-L and L1 are the rejections made by the Appellate Authority. Petitioner with these facts wants the impugned orders to be set aside by this Court. The said petition was disposed of by this Court. This Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal. Appeal was filed by the petitioner in terms of Annexure-K. Annexures-L and L1 are the rejections made by the Appellate Authority. Petitioner with these facts wants the impugned orders to be set aside by this Court. ( 5 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance. They filed their objection statement. They say that the place where the petitioner proposed to visit i. e. , Sandur or the place of his accident i. e. , Narasapur Cross does not come under the area of operation of Taranagar Branch of this respondent. They are outside the area of operation of said branch where the petitioner was working. They further say that the petitioner was to obtain prior permission for visiting area outside the operation of the branch. Petitioner did not obtain any such permission. They say that this fact would show that the petitioner was not on duty when he suffered the accident. Respondents further refer to various annexures in support of their case. They say that the petitioner cannot be given any special leave on the facts of this case. They justify their action in the matter. ( 6 ) HEARD the learned Counsels. ( 7 ) COUNSELS reiterate their stand in terms of the pleadings by way of arguments in this Court. Material facts would reveal that the accident did occur on 24-12-1988. Petitioner did not raise this claim till 1994. Only for the first time he raised this issue in terms of Annexure-B. He has made representation to the Bank, the Bank has stated that there is no provision available in terms of the staff regulation to provide the benefit of treating the absence as on duty. The Bank has also stated in annexure-H that the guidelines issued by NABAKD dated 9-11-1994 cannot be made applicable retrospectively to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner's Counsel is unable to show to this Court that there is any staff regulations available to the petitioner for treating such absence as on duty. Therefore, the Bank is right in rejecting the request in terms of Annexure-F. Bank is also right in not providing benefit of guidelines dated 9-11-1994 to an accident occurred in 1988. Annexure-H in the circumstances cannot be set aside. Petitioner is unable to show that the NABARD communication is retrospective in character. Therefore, the Bank is right in rejecting the request in terms of Annexure-F. Bank is also right in not providing benefit of guidelines dated 9-11-1994 to an accident occurred in 1988. Annexure-H in the circumstances cannot be set aside. Petitioner is unable to show that the NABARD communication is retrospective in character. ( 8 ) PETITIONER's Counsel referred to the service conditions of the Canara bank in the matter of accident while on duty. ( 9 ) ON this presumption the petitioner argued that the accident had occurred while on duty. Assuming that such said conditions are applicable to the petitioner, even then the facts of the case do not support the case of the petitioner. According to the petition averments accident occurred on 24-12-1988 while on duty. To show that the accident had occurred on duty the petitioner has stated that he was going to Sandur for mobilising the deposits and at that time he suffered an accident. Respondents have placed material before this Court to show that the petitioner did not obtain any prior permission before going to Sandur. It is also established before the Court that the petitioner's family is put up in Taranagar. Petitioner had suffered an accident on 24-12-1988 near narasapur Cross which is 3 kms. away from Sandur. There is no material placed before this Court to show that the petitioner was asked to mobilise the funds during working hours by the Bank without permission. No acceptable evidence is available on record to link the accident with the deposit mobilisation work. The Appellate Authority in a detailed order has considered all these aspects of the matter to reject the case of the petitioner. The said order is based on facts. I do not find any justifiable grounds to set aside a well-reasoned fact-finding order of the appellate Authority in this petition. In the circumstances the challenge to Annexures-L and L1 are also rejected. ( 10 ) IT is also interesting to note that the petitioner suffered an accident in 1988 and he has chosen to make this claim only in 1994 i. e. , after six long years. The delay would show that the petitioner is trying to make a wrongful gain out of this accident. I must notice that the Bank was generous in providing all the benefits available to the petitioner. The delay would show that the petitioner is trying to make a wrongful gain out of this accident. I must notice that the Bank was generous in providing all the benefits available to the petitioner. They have regularised his absence by treating the same as privileged leave, extraordinary leave and loss of pay in the given set of facts. In the circumstances no injustice is done to the petitioner by the Bank. ( 11 ) LOOKING from any angle the petitioner does not deserve any order at the hands of this Court as sought for by him. Writ petition is therefore rejected. Parties to bear their respective costs. --- *** --- .