Idbi Bank Officers Association v. Idbi Bank Ltd.And 3 ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.35 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1200 OF 2018 IDBI Bank Officers' Association, Mumbai .. Petitioner Vs.

IDBI Bank Ltd., Mumbai and Ors.

.. Respondents Mr. Prabhakar Ranshur, i/by R.S. Mane & Associates, for the Petitioner. Ms. Kanchan Pamnani for Respondent No.1-IDBI Bank. Mr. Aniruddha Garge for Respondent-UOI.

CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ DATE : 31 ST AUGUST, 2023.

P.C. :

1.

Heard.

2.

We have gone through the review petition and various grounds taken therein to support the prayer made in this review petition that the order dated th July 2019 passed by this court, whereby the original petition has been disposed of, be reviewed. These grounds related to the own MACPS policy of IDBI here, which, according to the petitioner, shows that there is a scope for IDBI to also adopt the policy of the Central Government regarding Assured Career Progression Scheme and the arbitrariness and unreasonableness shown 1/2 3-RPW-35-2019.doc Dixit

by the IDBI in refusing to mold its policy on the lines of the policy framed by the Central Government in that regard.

3.

We find no substance in these grounds inasmuch as they do not show that any case has been made out by the petitioner. Besides, it is well established fact that the policy of Assured Career Progression Scheme framed by the Government of India has not been adopted as it is by the IDBI and IDBI has come out with its own policy. That being so, it was not within the power and jurisdiction of this court to direct IDBI to frame its Assured Career Progression Scheme in a manner expected by the petitioner, unless it was established by the petitioner that the policy so framed was against any express provision of law or Constitution or is in violation of any statutory right or fundamental right of the petitioner. That being not the case here, we find that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order sought to be reviewed. The petition stands dismissed.

[ FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J. ] [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J. ] 2/2 3-RPW-35-2019.doc Dixit