IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.6542 of 2011
RAM NARESH SINGH, SON OF LATE MATHURA SINGH, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE MADAN SATH, P.S. DAUDPUR, IN THE DISTRICT OF SARAN
... ... PETITIONER.
Versus
1. THE ALLAHABAD BANK THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD
OFFICE, 2 NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD, KOLKATA - 400001.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, ALLAHABAD BANK, 2 NETAJI SUBHASH
MARG, KOLKATA.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE),
ALLAHABAD BANK, HEAD OFFICE, 2 NETAJI SUBHASH MARG,
KOLKATA.
4. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, ALLAHABAD BANK, ZONAL OFFICE,
PATNA.
5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ALLAHABAD, MORADPUR BRANCH, PATNA.
... ... RESPONDENTS.
-----------
2. 18.4.2011. Heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ajay
Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of all the respondents/Allahabad
Bank.
The petitioner in extraordinary
writ jurisdiction has prayed for directing
the respondents/Bank to consider his
appointment with effect from 1.12.1972 and
thereafter, calculate his entire retiral
dues. The petitioner, as per pleading, was
appointed as Part Time Clerk in Allahabad
Bank on 1.11.1972. Subsequently, his
service was terminated with effect from
17.12.1976. However, on 20.11.1982, he was
appointed in regular service as Clerk.
2
After his appointment, he raised the
dispute for his initial date of appointment
and vide circular dated 30.4.1993,
predating was accepted and his service was
predated with effect form 28.10.1981.
Subsequently, the petitioner retired with
effect from 29.2.1996. It is not in dispute
that petitioner, after retirement, had
received all the retiral dues. It further
appears that petitioner thereafter raised a
dispute before the Controlling Authority
under Payment of Gratuity Act and finally
the Controlling Authority under the Payment
of Gratuity Act and Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Patna, by its order
dated 2.11.2009, has rejected the claim of
the petitioner. One of the main ground for
rejection of claim by the Assistant Labour
Commissioner was that the matter was stale
one and petitioner, after retirement in the
year 1996, had received all the retiral
dues. The order of Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Patna has been
brought on record as Annexure-3 to the
petition. Surprisingly in the present writ
petition, the petitioner has not at all
3
made a prayer for quashing of the order of
Assistant labour Commissioner nor the
petitioner has brought on record, the order
whereby he was appointed in the year 1982.
The court is of the opinion that
since the petitioner had already retired in
the year 1996 i.e. on 29.2.1996 and
received all the retiral dues, after such a
long delay, no relief can be granted to the
petitioner. Moreover in the writ petition,
the petitioner has not even brought on
record his appointment letter dated
20.11.1982, nor the communication, whereby
in the year 1972, he was appointed as Part
Time Clerk in the Bank. In absence of any
specific pleading as well as on the ground
of delay of several years, no relief can be
granted.
The writ petition stands rejected.
N.H./ ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)