SHAILENDRA MOHAN PRASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF CENTRAL INFORMATION STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA.

THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CENTRAL INFORMATION OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PATNA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA.

THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BIHTA BRANCH, PATNA.

THE SECRETARY OF RECRUITMENT BOARD, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PATNA.

S.M. PD. SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, TYPIST, INFORMATION OFFICE OF GENERAL MANAGER-I, STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA.

26.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and ----------- the counsel for the State Bank of India(hereinafter referred to as the Bank).

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the information given to him under letter dated 27.2.2009 under the Right Information Act, 2005, Annexure-13, whereunder it has been said that his representation for permanent absorption in the Bank was considered in detail in the year 1998 and was declined by the Bank.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was appointed as temporary Clerk-cum-Typist at 2 Bihta Branch of the Bank for the period of 83 days i.e. from 10.10.1972 to 31.12.1972 at Rs.170/- per mensum plus usual Dearness Allowance. The appointment was to come to an end at the expiry of the aforesaid period, unless extended in the meantime. The appointment of the petitioner was further made for another period of 89 days with effect from 2.1.1973 to 21.3.1973 under memo dated 2.1.1973, Annexure-2 on the same terms which is contained in Annexure-1. The temporary appointment of the petitioner was, however, not made after 21.3.1973 and was terminated. By filing representation petitioner requested the authorities of the Bank to further extend his employment as temporary Clerk-cum-Typist as also to absorb him but the same was not considered. Legal notice was also served for absorption of the petitioner by Advocate Chandra Bhanu Pandey, which was also not considered and rejected under letter dated 27.6.1989, Annexure-5, whereafter he approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No.3117 of 1990 but the writ application was also dismissed under order dated 3.9.1990, Annexure-6 on the ground that the terms of Bipartite Agreement was not enforceable in writ jurisdiction. Even after rejection of the writ application petitioner continued to represent before the authorities of the Bank for absorption through the General Secretary of the Staff Association of the 3 Bank under representation dated 5.3.1991 absorption of the petitioner in the Bank service. The request of the association for permanent absorption was considered and rejected in the year 1998. Petitioner even thereafter continued to represent, but the authorities of the Bank did not respond to such representation, petitioner thereafter approached the Ombudsman of the Bank, the Ombudsman of the Bank refused to interfere under order dated 22.3.2003, Annexure-9, whereafter petitioner approached the authorities of the Bank under Right to Information Act to know about the result of his request for absorption, in response whereto under the impugned order dated 27.2.2009, Annexure-13 the Bank informed the petitioner that his representation for permanent absorption was considered in detail in the year 1998 and was declined by the Bank.

By filing the present writ application petitioner requested this Court to interfere in the matter and in support of his prayer has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The State Bank of India Versus Shri N. Sundara Money, reported in (1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 822, paragraphs-5, 6, 7 and 8 to submit that the failure of the Bank not to extend the service of the petitioner beyond 21.3.1973 is violative of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 4 and as the Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to interfere in the said judgment, this Court should interfere in the case of the petitioner and direct the Bank to comply the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act for failure of the Bank to extend the service of the petitioner beyond

21.3.1973.

Counsel for the Bank has opposed the prayer. He states that temporary service of the petitioner was not extended beyond 21.3.1973 and after his writ application failed in the year 1990 under orders dated

3.9.1990, Annexure-6 petitioner should have been well advised to approach the labaour court for enforcing the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and at this belated stage, the Court should not interfere in the matter as the same prayer has already been refused by this court under orders dated 3.9.1990, Annexure-6 and the writ application is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata.

6. I see substance in the submission raised by the counsel for the Bank and the writ application is dismissed. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)