Umashanker Prasad v. The Secretary Munger Jamui Cen

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1254 of 2009 ====================================================== Umashanker Prasad, son of Late Lakhan Singh, resident of village and P.O. Ghostawah, P.S. Giriyak, District-Nalanda .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Secretary, Munger-Jamui Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Munger

2. The Managing Director, Munger-Jamui Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Others.

3. The Director, Munger-Jamui Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Munger .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mr. Bipin Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-03-2017 In this case, earlier by order dated 27.09.2013, notice was directed to be issued to Respondents. Office note suggests that the notice was validly served on Respondent nos.1 to 3 i.e. officials of Munger-Jamui Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Munger. Despite valid service of notice, the Respondents have preferred not to appear.

The petitioner, in the present writ petition, has prayed for granting benefit of time bound promotion and other benefits. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may be disposed of with direction to take decision on the representation i.e. Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has raised grievance before the Managing Director,

Patna High Court CWJC No.1254 of 2009 (3) dt.20-03-2017 2/2 Munger-Jamui Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Munger. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is desirable to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation with supporting documents before the Respondent no.2/ Managing Director, Munger-Jamui Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Munger. If such representation is filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today, the Respondent no.2 is required to examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. If Respondent no.2 considers the grievance of the petitioner as genuine, he is required to pass a speaking order within the aforesaid time.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U