{"id":50993,"date":"2009-08-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009"},"modified":"2018-05-29T12:57:21","modified_gmt":"2018-05-29T07:27:21","slug":"palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 28 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 28 August, 2009<\/div>\n
                             Writ Petition (S) No. 754 of 2002\n                                                ---\n           In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\n                                                ---\n           Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank Adhikari Sangh\n           Through its General Secretary Sri Kishori Kumar\n           Shukla                                                               Petitioner\n                                              Versus\n           Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank through its\n           Chairman and another                                                 Respondents\n                                             ---\n           For the Petitioner:            Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate\n           For the Respondents:           Mr. N. Bakshi, Advocate\n                                                ---\n                                   PRESENT\n                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK\n\n                                  CAV ORDER\n                                      ---\n           Reserved On: 23.07.2009         Pronounced On: 28.08.2009\n                                           ---\nD.G.R. Patnaik, J: The petitioner being an Association of Officers of Palamau Kshetriya\n           Gramin Bank, have filed this writ application, praying for quashing of part of the\n           notification dated 1.12.2001 (Annexure-8), whereby the reimbursement of\n           medical expenditure has been fixed for the employees of the Palamau Kshetriya\n           Gramin Bank unequal to the employees of the Sponsor Bank namely, the State\n           Bank of India. Claiming parity with the employees of the Sponsor Bank in respect\n           of medical reimbursement, the petitioner has claimed that the impugned portion\n           of Annexure-8, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the directions contained in the\n           Award dated 30.4.1990 passed by the National Industrial Tribunal (NIT).\n           2.       Respondents by filing counter-affidavit, have denied and disputed the\n           petitioner's claim and have counter asserted that the impugned notification is only\n           by way of a communication of the decision taken by the Sponsor Bank namely,\n           the State Bank of India, which in turn, is based upon a notification issued by the\n           Central Government in exercise of its powers under the provisions of section\n           17(1) of the Regional Rural Banks' Act, 1976.\n           3.       In the light of the stand taken by the respondent Bank and for better\n           appreciation of the dispute, the backgrounds facts of the petitioner's case has\n           necessarily to be noted.\n                    The Rural Banks including the Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank (referred\n           to as Kshetriya Bank) (Respondent No. 1), were created by the Central\n           Government notification under the provisions of section 2 of the Regional Rural\n           Bank Act, 1976 The State Bank of India became the Sponsor Bank of respondent\n           no. 1.\n                    Resentment was expressed by the employees of the Rural Banks on\n           account of disparity in their service conditions as compared to the service\n           conditions applied to the employees of the Sponsor Bank. Such grievance raised\n                                     2\n\n\non the claim of equal pay for equal work, was referred to the Supreme Court. The\nApex Court referred the matter to the National Industrial Tribunal (NIT).\n       The NIT declared its Award on 30.4.1990, holding that the employees of\nthe Regional Rural Banks would be entitled to claim parity with the officers and\nother employees of Sponsor Banks in the matter of pay scales, allowances and\nother benefits. The Tribunal directed that the Award should be given effect to\nfrom 1.9.1987. However, with regard to equation of posts and consequent fixation\nof the new scales of pay, allowances and other benefits for officers and\nemployees of the Regional Rural Banks, at par with the officers and other\nemployees of comparable level in corresponding posts in Sponsor Banks and their\nfitment into new scales of pay as are applicable to the officers of the Sponsor\nBank, the Tribunal held that it is a matter which has to be decided by the Central\nGovernment in consultation with such authorities as it may consider necessary.\n       Since, from the date when Award was made effective with effect from\n1.9.1987<\/pre>\n
, the employees of the Nationalized Commercial Banks, were getting
\ntheir pay scales on the basis of the 5th bipartite settlement and by implementation
\nof the NIT Award, the employees of the Regional Rural Banks were also given
\nthe benefit of the 5th bipartite settlement on the basis of which, pay structure of
\nthe Nationalized Commercial Banks had been determined.\n<\/p>\n
       In consonance with the directions contained in the NIT Award of 1990,
\nthe National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) issued a
\ndirection on 19.2.1991 to all the Rural Banks, declaring therein that allowances
\nand other benefits which are provided in the Bipartite settlement in the Service
\nRegulations of the concerned Sponsor Banks, be extended to the employees and
\nofficers of the Regional Rural Banks respectively. It was also announced in the
\ndirection of the NABARD that Government of India has decided to implement
\nthe NIT Award and has also accepted the recommendations of the Equation
\nCommittee regarding equation of posts in the Rural Banks with those of the
\nSponsor Banks.\n<\/p>\n
       By a notification dated 11.7.1991 (Annexure-3) a similar direction was
\nissued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking
\nDivision) of the Central Government, addressed to the Chairman of the Regional
\nRural Banks for implementation of the Award. In the aforesaid Central
\nGovernment directives, emphasis was placed vide Clause-14, declaring therein
\nthat “allowances, special allowances and other benefits which are provided in the
\nBipartite settlement and service Regulation of concerned Sponsor Banks be
\nextended to the employees \/ officers of Regional Rural Banks respectively”. The
\nallowances and other benefits made effective both retrospectively and
\nprospectively as detailed in Clause-15 of the directives, include the benefits of
\nreimbursement of medical expenses, hospitalization and other benefits as per
\nhospitalization scheme.\n<\/p>\n
                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
       In compliance of the above direction issued by the Central Government,
\nthrough the Ministry of Finance, the Respondent Kshetriya Bank issued a
\ndirection for implementation of the Central Government directives declaring that
\nthe officers of Kshetriya Bank would get 100% medical reimbursement of
\nhospitalization charges and their wards will get 75%.\n<\/p>\n
       Consequent upon the notification, members of the petitioner Association
\nbegan to receive the medical benefits at par with the employees of the Sponsor
\nBank\n<\/p>\n
4.     While the matter thus came to be finally settled, the Kshetriya Bank
\n(Respondent No. 1) by a subsequent notification, proceeded to revise the medical
\nfacilities of its officers and employees.\n<\/p>\n
       Being aggrieved, the employees of the Kshetriya Bank preferred a writ
\napplication vide CWJC No. 2893 of 1991 (R) before this court. The writ
\napplication was disposed of on the basis of the assurance given by the
\nrespondents that they are contemplating to extend some more facilities to the
\nemployees of the Kshetriya Bank and the matter is under consideration by the
\nCentral Government.\n<\/p>\n
5.     The petitioner alleges that contrary to the assurance given before the High
\nCourt, the Respondent Bank arbitrarily stopped extending medical facilities to the
\nemployees of the Kshetriya Bank and had also threatened to recover the amounts
\ngiven to them by way of medical reimbursement. Such action was taken by the
\nRespondent Bank on the presumption that the writ petition filed by the employees
\nof the Kshetriya Bank was dismissed by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
6.     Being aggrieved, the employees of the Kshetriya Bank filed another writ
\napplication vide CWJC No. 864 of 1999 (R), challenging the notification issued
\nby the respondent Bank, whereby the medical facility was withdrawn. The
\nimpugned notification was quashed by the High Court and a direction was issued
\nto the respondent Bank to follow the guidelines issued by the Sponsor Bank and
\nalso take into consideration the earlier notification issued by the respondent no. 1,
\nas also the NIT Award and to provide the same medical facilities as being given
\nto the employees of the Sponsor Bank.\n<\/p>\n
7.     Later, when the pay structure of the employees of the Nationalized
\nCommercial Banks was further revised in 1992 and 1997 by means of 6th and 7th
\nbipartite settlement, there was no corresponding revision of the pay structure of
\nthe employees of the Regional Rural Banks
\n       As a consequence, the dispute regarding disparity in the pay structure of
\nthe employees of the Regional Rural Banks vis-\u00e0-vis the Nationalized
\nCommercial banks, once again reared its head, which culminated in the filing of
\nthe litigation referred to as South Malabar Gramin Bank vs. Co-ordination
\nCommittee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees Union and South
\nMalabar Gramin Bank Officer’s Federation and others<\/a>, (2001 (4) Supreme
\nCourt Cases 101.\n<\/p>\n
                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
       The impugned challenge in South Malabar Gramin Bank case (Supra)
\nwas regarding the validity of section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976,
\non the ground that the provisions of section 17 of the Act is ultra-vires of Articles
\n14 and 16 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
8.     While deciding the issue, the Supreme Court had declared that the
\nprovisions of section 17(1) of the Regional Rural Banks Act, was not ultra-vires
\nto the Constitution and that the revision of pay structure of the employees of the
\nRegional Rural Banks could be made only after the Central Government exercises
\nits powers under the provisions of the Act and determines the same. The Supreme
\nCourt had however laid down a guideline that while exercising the pay structure
\nof the employees of the Regional Rural Banks, the Central Government would be
\nduty bound to maintain parity with the pay structure of the employees of the
\nNationalized Commercial Banks in the same sense and spirit as the Tribunal
\ndecided and was given effect to by the Union Government in the year 1987.\n<\/p>\n
9.     For implementation of the directions of the Supreme Court in South
\nMalabar Gramin Bank case (Supra), Government of India, Ministry of
\nFinance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) issued a
\nnotification on 11.4.2001 (which is referred to by the respondents as Annexure-A
\nto the counter-affidavit), declaring the pay scales as determined for the employees
\nof the Regional Rural Banks.\n<\/p>\n
10.    Raising a strong protest against the notification (Annexure-A), the All
\nIndia Regional Rural Banks’ Officers Federation challenged the same before the
\nSupreme Court in the case of All India Regional Rural Banks’ Officers v.
\nGovernment of India and others<\/a> (2002 (3) SCC 554). The controversy raised in
\nrespect of the notification, was concerning the limitation imposed in the current
\npayment of increase in the salary and in the payment of arrears. The Supreme
\nCourt after analyzing Clause-II and III of the notification, had declared it
\nunacceptable and quashed the same. It appears that in the aforesaid case, no
\ndispute was raised in respect of the other clauses, including Clause-V of the
\nnotification.\n<\/p>\n
       Clause-V of the notification reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                “As far as other allowances are concerned, individual Sponsor
\n                Banks shall negotiate the same with the respective RRBs. The
\n                revised allowance shall be paid with effect from 1.4.2000. The
\n                ceiling in the payment shall, however, be as per the formula stated
\n                in Clause-iii above.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11.    Pursuant to the directives contained in Clause-V of the Central
\nGovernment Notification, the Sponsor Bank of Respondent No. 1 namely, the
\nState Bank of India, constituted a Committee comprising of three Chairman of
\nRRBs, two Assistant General Manager (RRBs) of the State Bank of India to
\nexamine the issue for extension of other allowances.                 Adopting the
\nrecommendation contained in the specially constituted Committee, the State Bank
\nof India issued a Circular (Annexure-B) on 25th October 2001 to be followed all
\n                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
over the country, specifying the amount of allowances payable to the officers and
\nemployees of the sponsored Regional Rural Banks.\n<\/p>\n
12.     The revised decision on the basis of the recommendation of the
\nCommittee in respect of allowances payable, have been mentioned in Annexure-I
\nand II to the Circular (Annexure-B) and have been made payable from 1.4.2000.
\nWhile Annexure-I to the Circular relates to the allowances payable to the Clerical
\nand Subordinate Staff, Annexure-II relates to the allowances payable to the
\nofficers of the Regional Rural Banks. The allowances which have been
\nspecifically incorporated in Annexure-I and II includes reimbursement of medical
\nexpenses (other than hospitalization scheme) of Rs. 1,000\/- in respect of Clerical
\nand Subordinate staff up to 5 years of service and Rs. 1,200\/- in respect of the
\nClerical and Subordinate staff above 5 years of service. For officers, though an
\namount of Rs. 2,225\/- per annum has been fixed towards medical aid, but the
\nhospitalization charges have not been revised and the existing allowances prior to
\nthe date of issuance of Circular, was to be paid, till further instructions.\n<\/p>\n
13.     Thus, Annexure-II to the Circular continues to provide existing allowances
\nin respect of the hospitalization charges and does not make any revision therein.
\nYet, contrary to the stipulations contained in Annexure-II, the Respondent
\nKshetriya Bank, by the impugned notification (Annexure-8), has altered the
\namount of medical reimbursement for the officers fixing the same at the rate of
\n90% for self and 60% for the dependants. Against this, the petitioner is aggrieved
\non the ground that earlier, reimbursement of medical expense in case of
\nhospitalization was 100% for self and 75% for the dependants of the employees \/
\nofficers which has now been reduced by the impugned notification.\n<\/p>\n
14.     Respondent No. 1 Kshetriya Bank has filed its counter-affidavit. The stand
\ntaken by the Kshetriya Bank (Respondent No. 1) is that the impugned order
\n(Annexure-8) in respect of fixation of medical aid for the employees of the
\nGramin Banks, has not been done by the Respondent Bank. Rather, such decision
\nwas taken by the Sponsor Bank in pursuance of the order of the Central
\nGovernment under the second proviso to Section 17(1) of the Regional Rural
\nBanks Act, 1976.\n<\/p>\n
        Referring to Annexure-A which is the order of the Central Government
\ndated 11.04.2001, learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the
\naforesaid order was passed pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court passed in
\nCivil Appeal No. 2218 of 1999 in the case of South Malabar Gramin Bank
\n(Supra).\n<\/p>\n
        Explaining further, learned counsel submits that the impugned notification
\nissued by the Respondent Bank is only by way of a Circular conveying
\ninformation to all the concerned officers about the decision of the Central
\nGovernment taken vide Annexure-A and if the petitioners’ are at all aggrieved,
\nthey ought to have challenged the aforesaid decision of the Central Government.
\nIf the petitioner’s prayer for quashing the impugned order (Annexure-8) is
\n                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
allowed, it will have the effect of quashing the order of the Central Government
\nwhich was passed in exercise of its powers under section 17(1) of Regional Rural
\nBanks Act, 1976. In absence of the Central Government as also the Sponsor Bank
\nbeing impleaded as necessary parties, the prayer of the petitioners for quashing
\nthe impugned notification, cannot be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
15.    It is further sought to be explained that in compliance with the verdict of
\nthe Supreme Court as laid down in the case of South Malabar Gramin
\nBank(Supra), in which the petitioner had intervened as member of the Regional
\nRural Bank Employees Association, the basic pay, Dearness allowance, house
\nrent allowance and all other allowances except medical aid (which is not treated
\nas allowance) have been granted to the officers of the Gramin Bank, including the
\nPalamau Kshetriya Bank, on exactly the same lines and at par with the employees
\nof the Nationalized Commercial Banks and of the Sponsor Bank. Furthermore, the
\nsame medical allowance of Rs. 2,225\/- per annum as given to the officers of all
\nNationalized Commercial Banks and other Gramin Banks, is being paid to the
\nemployees of the Kshetriya Bank and in this respect, there is no disparity
\nwhatsoever amongst the employees of the Nationalized Commercial Banks and
\nthe employees of the Respondent Kshetriya Bank.\n<\/p>\n
16.    Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it has to be seen as to
\nwhether, by the impugned notification (Annexure-8), the respondent Bank has
\ncurtailed any benefit relating to medical aid to the members of the petitioner
\nAssociation, which was earlier extended to them, and if so, whether it was within
\nthe competence of the respondent Kshetriya Bank to issue the impugned
\nnotification?\n<\/p>\n
17.    Admittedly, earlier, pursuant to the Central Government Notification dated
\n11.7.1991 (Annexure-3), the respondent Kshetriya Bank had issued Circular for
\nproper implementation of the Central Government directives, declaring that the
\nofficers of the Kshetriya Banks would 100% medical facilities and their ward
\nwould get 75% medical facilities towards hospitalization charges and this
\ndirection was implemented.\n<\/p>\n
       By the impugned notification, medical facilities have been curtailed.\n<\/p>\n
18.    As observed above, the decision taken by the Sponsor Bank so indicated
\nthrough its Circular (Annexure-B), does not make any alteration in the extent of
\nreimbursement of allowances towards hospitalization for the officers and other
\nstaff of the Regional Rural Banks. Rather, it declares that the existing allowances
\nmust be treated to be the same which was earlier declared by the Kshetriya
\nGramine Bank in pursuance to the Central Government Notification dated
\n11.7.1991 (Annexure-3) whereby officers of the Kshetriya Banks were allowed
\n100% medical facilities and their wards were allowed 75% medical facilities\n<\/p>\n
19.    The stand taken by the respondents that the decision, as conveyed by the
\nimpugned notification, is in fact a decision taken by the Sponsor Bank in
\nconsonance with the decision taken by the Central Government vide its
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
      notification (Annexure-3), is apparently incorrect. As observed above, the
\n      Circular issued by the Sponsor Bank (Annexure-B) does not make any alteration
\n      or change in the extent of medical facilities including reimbursement of
\n      hospitalization charges. Yet, the respondent Bank has unilaterally proceeded to
\n      alter the medical facilities which were earlier extended to the members of the
\n      petitioner Association. Such power is certainly not vested with the respondent
\n      Bank. The decision to curtail the facilities, is in violation of the directions
\n      contained in the NIT Award and arbitrarily tends to deprive the benefits which
\n      were earlier extended to the members of the petitioner Association.\n<\/p>\n
      20.    In the light of the above discussions, I find merit in this writ application
\n      and the same is accordingly allowed. The impugned portion of the notification
\n      (Annexure-8) is hereby quashed. The members of the petitioner Association shall
\n      continue to receive the same medical facilities as was fixed and allowed to them
\n      in pursuance to the earlier Central Government Notification dated 11.7.1991
\n      (Annexure-3)<\/p>\n
                                                                  (D.G.R. Patnaik, J)
\nJharkhand High Court, Ranchi
\nDated 28th August 2009
\nRanjeet\/N.A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 28 August, 2009 Writ Petition (S) No. 754 of 2002 — In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India — Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank Adhikari Sangh Through its General Secretary Sri Kishori Kumar Shukla Petitioner Versus […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-50993","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPalamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-29T07:27:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 28 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-29T07:27:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2338,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-29T07:27:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 28 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-29T07:27:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 28 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-29T07:27:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009"},"wordCount":2338,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009","name":"Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-29T07:27:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-vs-palamau-kshetriya-gramin-bank-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 28 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50993","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=50993"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50993\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50993"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50993"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50993"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}