Rajendra Prasad v. The Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10158 of 2025 ====================================================== Rajendra Prasad son of Late Bhatu Mahto, resident of Anjaly Bhawan, Mahi Khandak, Ayodhya Path, P.S.- Biharsharif, District- Nalanda. At present posted as Senior Manager (MMG Scale III), Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Sastra, Biharsharif, Nalanda (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union of India through the Finance Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi.

2.

The Chairman, Punjab National Bank, Sector- 10, Dwarka, New Delhi110075. 3.

The General Manager, Human Resources Development Division, Punjab National Bank, Plot no. 4, Sector- 10, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075. 4.

The Assistant General Manager, Human Resources Development Division, Punjab National Bank, Plot no. 4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075. 5.

The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Second Floor, Chanakya Towers, R Block, Patna-800001 (Bihar).

6.

The Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Ramchandarpur, Machhali Market, Biharsharif- 803101, Nalanda (Bihar). 7.

The Circle Head, HRM Section, Circle Office Muzaffarnagar, Under Meerut Zone, U.P.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Additional Solicitor General ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 03-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Union of India.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari with the following relief/s:-

2/4 "I. To quash the letter no. HRD:SMR:

82052:2826 dated 28.07.2017 (annexed as Annexure-6) issued by the Assistant General Manager, Human Resources Development Division, Punjab National Bank, Head Office, New Delhi by which the petitioner has been reversed from the post of Chief Manager (SMG Scale IV) to Senior Manager (MMG Scale III) post.

II. To reinstate the petitioner on the post of Chief Manager (SMG Scale IV) after quashing the reversion order and further issue an appropriate writ for issue a direction to the respondent bank to pay the arrear of balance salary to the petitioner after his reinstatement on the post of Chief Manager and also directed the respondents to repay the deducted amount Rs. 2,38,502.82 (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty eight Thousand Five Hundred Two and Eight Two Paisa) with suitable interest to the petitioner which was deducted from petitioner's salary in November, 2023 without informing him any reason for deduction and also direct the respondent for the payment of two stagnation increment after regularising the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th stagnation increments along with the other consequential benefits for which the petitioner is legally entitled.

III. For issuance of a writ / order /direction

3/4 for which the petitioner may be found legally entitled to under the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that the petitioner vide his application dated 03.05.2017 has requested to the Circle Head, Circle Office, Muzaffarpur for reversal of his services. In this regard, Three Men Committee was constituted before which petitioner appeared which is apparent from Annexure-4 and upon conciliation, the decision for reversion has been taken in the year 2017. And finally, petitioner's request for reversion, stoppage of transfer and choice posting has been made by the Circle Head/Chief Manager of the P.N.B. Counsel submits that the date of counseling was fixed on 16.06.2017, but the decision has been taken on 15.06.2017 itself.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the RespondentBank on the other hand submits that the cause of action for the petitioner has arisen in the year 2017. But, after lapse of about 8 years, petitioner has moved before this Hon'ble Court challenging the decision which was basically taken by the Bank on the request of the petitioner and he become the beneficiary of the said decision.

4/4

5. As such, after delay of 8 years, this Court is not inclined to interfere in this matter. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U