Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 367 (PAT)

Ram Mandal v. Chairman UCO Bank

2013-03-15

BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA

body2013
ORAL ORDER When this batch of writ petitions was being heard on 27.08.2008 by a Bench of this Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent UCO Bank submitted that identical issues are awaiting adjudication by a Division Bench in L. P. A. No 1216, 1217, 1218 and 1219, all of the year 2004. In view of the aforesaid submissions by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent UCO Bank and its functionaries, vide order dated 27.08.2008, all these matters were directed to be listed for admission after disposal of the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals. 2. Now, it is the common case of the parties that all the aforesaid four Letters Patent Appeals bearing No. 1216 of 2004, 1217 of 2004, 1218 of 2004 and 1219 of 2004 have finally been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by a judgment and order dated 11th September 2008. The contentions raised on behalf of the respondent UCO Bank and its functionaries resisting the claim of the employees of the Bank for application of pension scheme under UCO Bank Employees’ (Pension) Regulation, 1993, were negatived by the Division Bench of this Court. In all these four matters the petitioners are/were employees of the UCO Bank and they are/ were posted in one and common Branch of UCO Bank at Bochaha in the district of Muzaffarpur. However, though the petitioners in three matters are still under the active service of the respondent UCO Bank, but petitioner of CWJC No. 13490 of 2006, namely, Arun Kumar Mallick, has superannuated from service during the pendency of this batch of the writ petitions. 3. The prayers made in all these four matters are common and identical and the reliefs sought for on their behalf have been fully detailed in paragraph-1 of the writ petition of each case. For ready reference, reliefs sought for on behalf of the petitioner in CWJC No. 11878 of 2006, fully delineated in paragraph-1 of the writ petition, are reproduced herein below:- “1. That this petition of the petitioners is being filed for issuance of writ of appropriate nature, order or direction commanding respondents to admit and enroll petitioner to pension scheme for which he had validly exercised option within time pursuant to the implementation of UCO Bank Employees’ (Pension) Regulation 1993 and invitation of option for this scheme through circular no. That this petition of the petitioners is being filed for issuance of writ of appropriate nature, order or direction commanding respondents to admit and enroll petitioner to pension scheme for which he had validly exercised option within time pursuant to the implementation of UCO Bank Employees’ (Pension) Regulation 1993 and invitation of option for this scheme through circular no. CHO/PMG/19/94 dated 27.5.1994 and for allowing benefits of pension scheme to the petitioner with all the consequential benefits as per the regulation.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that issues raised in this batch of writ petitions are now, squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment dated 11th September 2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1216 of 2006 and its analogous appeals. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent UCO Bank and its functionaries, though has opposed the prayer made in the present batch of writ applications but has not disputed the fact that issues raised on behalf of the respondent UCO Bank in aforesaid LPA No. 1216 of 2004 and its analogous appeals were not accepted and the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing the claim of the employees concerned was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that now the grievances of the petitioners have already been redressed, and therefore, these petitions have become infructuous, yet counsel for the petitioners has disputed his claims. 6. Be that as it may, in the given facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners of each case should file a detailed representation before the respondent General Manager (Respondent no.2) with all supporting documents raising all the issues, which have been raised in the present proceeding. The petitioners shall also bring to the notice of the respondent no.2 the aforesaid judgment and order dated 11th September 2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1216 of 2004 and its analogous appeals. It is ordered accordingly. 7. The petitioners shall also bring to the notice of the respondent no.2 the aforesaid judgment and order dated 11th September 2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1216 of 2004 and its analogous appeals. It is ordered accordingly. 7. If such separate representations are filed by each of the writ petitioners with all supporting documents within a period of one month from today, then the respondent General Manager, (Respondent no.2) of the respondent Bank shall be obliged to consider and decide the claim raised on behalf of each of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order, but by bearing in mind the judgment and order dated 11th September 2008 passed in LPA No. 1216 of 2004 and its analogous appeals by a Division Bench of this Court, which has admittedly attained its finality. If on consideration of materials the respondent General Manager comes to a conclusion that in view of the binding precedents the petitioners are entitled to receive the claims raised on their behalf, then he shall further be obliged to issue consequential order granting admissible reliefs to the petitioners without unnecessary delay. 8. Entire exercise must be completed by respondent no.2 within a maximum period of six months from the date of filing of the representation by each of the petitioners. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present batch of writ applications stand disposed of.