Manish Kumar Jha v. The Central Bank Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6915 of 2022 ====================================================== Manish Kumar Jha Son of Late Raj Kumar Jha, Resident of Mohalla- Adarsh Nagar Colony, Hamumanbag, P.S. Madhubani, District- Madhubani, presently residing at A- 309 B, Durga Vihar, Devli, South Delhi, PIN- 110062. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Central Bank of India through its Chairman, Central Office, Chandramukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai, 400021.

2.

The Chairman, Central Bank of India, Central Office, Chandramukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai, 400021.

3.

The General Manager, Human Resources Department, Central Bank of India, Central Office, Chandramukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai, 400021. 4.

The Chief Manager (H.R.D.), Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Darbhanga.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Satish Chandra Jha 3, Advocate Mr. Shambhoo Kumar Suman, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate Mr. Shadwal Harsh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 06-07-2022 Heard Mr. Satish Chandra Jha for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondent/bank.

Mr. Jha refer to Clause 7 of the Policy for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds or Payment of Lumpsum Ex-Gratia Amount, which reads as follows:- "7. RELAXATIONS Upper age limit could be relaxed wherever found to be necessary. The lower age limit shall, however, in no case be relaxed below 18 years of age.

Note-1: Age eligibility shall be determined with reference to the date of application and not the date of appointment;

Patna High Court CWJC No.6915 of 2022(2) dt.06-07-2022 2/2 Note-2: Authority competent to take a final decision for making compassionate appointment in a case shall be competent to grant relaxation of age limit also, for making such appointment"

Admitted case of the petitioner, from pleadings in the writ petition, is that he was 30 years of age at the relevant point of time and was over age for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is submitted that his case has not been considered for relaxation.

This Court does not find any application made by the petitioner seeking relaxation of upper age limit in terms of Clause 7 of the policy, as noted above.

If the petitioner is desirous of claiming such relaxation, which he has not done, it would be open for him to approach the authorities for seeking such relaxation.

This writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy before the authorities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) Shashank/- M.E.H./- U