Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9399 of 2019 Petitioner :- Munshi Prasad Respondent :- Central Bank Of India Thru Its Chairman And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Mahendra Counsel for Respondent :- Vishnu Pratap
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
The only prayer made in this petition is to direct the respondent bank to decide petitioner's application dated 22.2.2019.
Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank points out that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 22933 of 2017 which was disposed of vide following orders passed on 23.5.2017:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner, after his removal from service, was served with a show cause as to why deductions be not made from his gratuity on account of the alleged loss to the Bank.
Against this show cause, the petitioner contends that he has already submitted his reply, but no orders have been passed by the respondent No.2.
It is also submitted that a Revision Petition has been filed before the respondent No.1.
Shri Vishnu Pratap, learned counsel for the Bank submits that the Writ Petition does not question the removal order and therefore, it is only a limited prayer with regard to the deduction from gratuity that has to be adjudicated. He submits that this can be done under the Payments of Gratuity Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such a relief can be claimed under the Act only after any orders are passed by any Competent Authority.
We therefore direct the respondent No.2 to pass an appropriate order in relation to the said explanation given by the petitioner on the issue of any deduction for which the petitioner has been put to show cause by passing an appropriate order within a period of 6 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
It shall be open to the petitioner to seek any relief by approaching the Statutory Authority, in case his grievances are not redressed, either departmentally or otherwise before any Statutory Forum thereafter."
In the present writ petition neither this order has been referred to nor has been brought on record. During the course of submission learned counsel attempts to contend that subsequent causes have arisen. The pleadings are absolute silent in that regard.
Petitioner since has not disclosed filing of the earlier writ petition, he cannot be said to have approached this Court with clean hands.
The writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Ranjeet Sahu