Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 319 (CAL)

Swapan Kumar Goswami v. Allahabad Bank

2013-06-05

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

body2013
Judgment :- Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. By this writ petition the petitioner has inter alia prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse the dues to the petitioner in respect of the promotions withheld by the bank, to consider the representations made by the petitioner and issue appropriate orders. The case of the petitioner was that in the year 1976 he was appointed as an employee of Allahabad Bank and he discharged his duties satisfactorily. During the course of his service he appeared in several examinations conducted by the bank authorities for promotion but he was not given any promotion taking into consideration his performance in the examination. The petitioner retired from service as the Assistant Manager of a certain branch of the bank on December 31, 2006 and his terminal benefits were released. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the respondents did not disburse the terminal dues taking into consideration his promotions which were withheld by the respondents authorities and the petitioner has been deprived of the benefits of such promotion. The petitioner made several representations while he was in service and also after his retirement to disburse the dues payable to him after taking into consideration the promotions which fell due to him. The concerned authorities did not pay any heed to them. Thus, according to the petitioner, he has been deprived of his right and, therefore, by the writ petition he has prayed for the reliefs referred to earlier. It appears that on November 15, 2011 when the motion was moved a learned single judge of this court had given an opportunity to the respondents to file their affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks. But no such affidavit was filed by the respondents and the matter was, therefore, treated as ready for hearing. I have heard Mr. Banerjee, the learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the respondents. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties and after going through the petition I am of the view that the petition merits no consideration. For the present we need not go into why the petitioner was not given any promotion during his service career. Petitioner himself did not raise this issue seriously while he was in service. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties and after going through the petition I am of the view that the petition merits no consideration. For the present we need not go into why the petitioner was not given any promotion during his service career. Petitioner himself did not raise this issue seriously while he was in service. Although it has been mentioned in the writ petition that he made several representations but no such representation has in fact been annexed to the writ petition, except a letter from an advocate which was sent in the month of July, 2011. It may, therefore, be taken that the petitioner had accepted his position without any objection. The petitioner now seeks direction upon the respondents for disbursing the amount which he would have enjoyed had be been promoted in time. But then that is too high a demand and there is no reason for the court to pass such an order after the petitioner had retired in the year 2006. The petitioner had a service tenure of about 30 years. How he raised objections to the denial of his promotion is not known. But it must be taken that he had accepted them and after more than three and a half decades it will be improper to direct the respondents to give him notional promotions and to fix his salary accordingly. The mere fact that the petitioner had appeared at certain examinations for departmental promotion does not entitle him to the benefits thereof. That apart he filed this writ petition about five years after his retirement and there is no document by which it can be said that the petitioner had ever objected to it. Thus, on the ground of delay alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has not given any date when his promotions fell due. The writ petition has absolutely no merits. The court refuses to issue any Mandamus on such a belated and speculative writ petition and thus the writ petition is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all requisite formalities.