M.Truman v. The Chairman And Managing Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU M.Truman .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Chairman and Managing Director Indian Overseas Bank Central Office, Chennai 2 2.The Executive Director Indian Overseas Bank Central Office, Chennai 2 3.The Deputy General Manager (D/A) Indian Overseas Bank C.O., Chennai 2 .. Respondents Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC to review the judgment dated 07.07.2023 made in W.A.No.1588 of 2018. 1/6

For Petitioner : Party-in-person For Respondents : Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy

O R D E R

(Made by R. SURESH KUMAR, J.) This review petition has been filed to review the judgment dated 07.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.A.No.1588 of 2018.

2. In the said order which is sought to be reviewed, we have passed the following order :

"2.It is unfortunate that this appeal has been filed by the appellant, who appeared in person before this Court without knowing what is the forum before which he can agitate any other issue with regard to his retirement or voluntary retirement, post retirement benefits and pension etc. 3.The reason for this observation that we made in, as against the order dated 06.12.2013, the appellant already filed another Intra-Court Appeal in W.A.No.791 of 2014, which came to be disposed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 03.07.2014, with the following effect:- The learned counsel for the appellant has made an endorsement in the writ appeal indicating that he is withdrawing the writ appeal.

2/6

2.In view of the endorsement so made by the learned counsel for the appellant, this writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to take recourse to law. We grant the such liberty as the appellant seeks to get a relief based upon the IOB Officers/Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme - 2000, which is not the subject matter of the writ petition. No costs. 4.Therefore the issue has already been given a quietus by the dismissal of the W.A.No.791 of 2014. Hence, once again the very same issue by filing the present appeal against the order passed by the learned Judge dated 06.12.2013, cannot be raised and thus, filing of this Writ Appeal is gross abuse of process of law.

5.However since no counsel has appeared on behalf of the appellant and only the appellant appeared party-in-person, while we are dismissing this Writ Appeal for the aforesaid reason, we are restrained ourselves from imposing any cost for the abuse of process of law. 6.It is made clear that pursuant to the liberty that has been recorded in the order dated 03.07.2014, by the Division Bench of this Court, if at all the appellant has got any grievance, he can agitate the issue in the manner known to law, which means at the appropriate forum. Therefore, that would not give any right to the appellant to file one more appeal against the very same order passed by the Writ Court dated 06.12.2013." 3/6

3. We have heard the petitioner who appeared in-person. The order which we have extracted above speaks for itself, does not warrant any interference. No grounds worth to be considered has been raised. Hence, this review petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(R.S.K., J.) (K.B., J.) 26.02.2025 gya Index : Yes/No 4/6

To 1.The Chairman and Managing Director Indian Overseas Bank Central Office, Chennai 2 2.The Executive Director Indian Overseas Bank Central Office, Chennai 2 3.The Deputy General Manager (D/A) Indian Overseas Bank C.O., Chennai 2 5/6

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

AND K. KUMARESH BABU, J.

gya 26.02.2025 6/6