Arun Kumar Sinha v. The Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1658 of 2016 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13954 of 2015 =========================================================== Arun Kumar Sinha S/o Late Ganesh Kumar Sinha R/o flat No - A/401, Sumit Enclave , Near Rupaspur Canal Bridge, PS - Rupaspur, Patna - 800001. .... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through its Finance Minister, South Block New Delhi.
2. The State Bank of India through its General Manager, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna 800001.
3. The Assistant General Manager, the State Bank of India Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna - 800001.
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ravi Shankar Ganguli, Advocate For the S.B.I. : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For U.O.I. Mr. S.D SANJAY (ADDL. SOC. GEN.) Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 18-03-2017 The appellant, an employee of the State Bank of India, filed a writ petition claiming interest on delayed payment of back wages and other benefits and also claimed promotion. The petition was filed in the year 2015. He had retired in the year 2012 and the cause of action for the claim accrued while he was in service in 2009.
Taking all these factors in consideration, the learned Writ Court found that this is not a fit case where interest can be
Patna High Court LPA No.1658 of 2016 dt.18-03-2017 2/2 awarded on the delayed payment. With regard to claim for promotion, the Writ Court found that it was the conduct of the petitioner which resulted in denial of promotion to him. On going through the order under challenge in this appeal under Clause 10 and having considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel and on perusal of the material that weighed with the learned Writ Court for rejecting the claim of the petitioner, we are satisfied that there is no error in the order passed by the Writ Court warranting re-consideration in the present matter. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) K.C.jha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 21.03.2017 Transmission Date N/A