Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5869 of 2021 Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Respondent :- Managing Director, C.E.O. (Chieff Executive Officer) Union Of Bank Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Ratan Agrawal
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Ratan Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents.
By means of the present writ petition petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay the full salary since 31.03.2018 admissible to the Petitioner as per rules of bank in pursuance to the suspension order dated 31.03.2017 and further prayed to pay the arrears of full salary and regularly month to month.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to decide the representation dated 3.10.2020 filed by the petitioner."
It appears that the petitioner was working on the post of Cashier/Clerk in Union Bank of India, Jaunpur. The petitioner has been suspended by order dated 31.03.2017 and disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him.
According to office note of Union Bank of India, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, which has been issued in respect of petitioner, the petitioner shall be entitled for the first three month 1/3rd of the pay and allowances, thereafter, one half of the pay and allowances and after completion of one year full pay of allowance will be payable to the petitioner.
The grievance of the petitioner is that according to aforesaid office notice, which has been issued in reference to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to payment of subsistence allowance as per the conditions stipulated in the said notice, but respondent-bank is not adhering to the condition of payment of subsistence allowance as stated in the said notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this respect, petitioner has submitted several representations to the respondent no.2, but respondent no.2 has not yet consider the representation of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent-bank would contend that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and appropriate direction may be issued to respondent no.2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.2-Mahaprabandhak, Union of India, Zonal Office, District Varanasi, alongwith the copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, raising all his grievances within a period of two weeks from today. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same by reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months thereafter.
The writ petition is disposed off subject to the observations made above.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Sattyarth