HOOGHLY DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED Vs. ANOJ KUMAR ROY
LAWS(CAL)-1996-6-32
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 26,1996

HOOGHLY DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
ANOJ KUMAR ROY Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA VS. K K MODI INVESTMENT AND FINANCIAL SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2002-3-82] [REFERRED TO]
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2002-4-77] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD KASEM ALI MONDAL AND VS. AJOY RANDE [LAWS(CAL)-1999-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRI SIPPY VS. SHAHSIKANT GHORPADE [LAWS(BOM)-2009-3-122] [REFERRED TO]
HARIDWAR PANDEY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2003-9-111] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.B.SINHA, J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 10th February, 1995 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil No. 6388 (W) of 1994,whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge directed the appellant to pay the arrears of salaries of the writ-petitioner respondent for the period from October, 1994 till date on the basis that he has been discharging his duties as senior Supervisor within a week therefrom. It was further directed that for the period June, 1994 till date all salaries in accordance with the applicable rules framed with regard to Hooghly District Central Co-operative Bank Limited shall be paid within a fortnight therefrom.
(2.)The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.
(3.)The respondent Anoj Kumar Roy (hereinafter referred to as 'the writ-petitioner') filed a writ application in this Court questioning the order of transfer dated 23-5-1994 issued by the appellant bank, whereby and whereunder he was transferred from Head Office Loan Section to the post of senior supervisor. Allegedly, on or about 4-6-94, he was released from loan Section and thereafter the aforementioned writ application was filed on 27-6-94. In the said writ application an interim order was passed. A question arose as to whether the writ-petitioner having been released prior to filing of the said writ application the interim order passed by the writ Court was complied with or not. However, in the meanwhile another interim order was passed whereby and whereunder the writ-petitioner was asked to join the transferred post. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said order, the writ-petitioner purported to have joined and submitted his joining report on 8-10-94 as contained in Annexure A/1 to the contempt application; wherein after his signature he put his designation as 'in charge, Loan Section'. As the said joining report was allegedly not accepted, a contempt application was filed by the writ-petitioner. However, the writ-petitioner purported to have submitted his joining report on 8-10-94 which was not accepted, whereafter the writ petitioner filed the contempt application. Another contempt application was also filed by the appellant for not submitting his joining report in terms of the interim order passed by the learned trial judge dated 3rd October, 1995. Both the aforementioned contempt applications were heard together and by reason of the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge disposed of the contempt applications in the manner as stated hereinbefore as keeping in view the controversy raised in the said writ application as to whether the writ-petitioner was entitled to submit his joining report as in charge loan Section; Mr. Sitaram Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, submitted that the said words may be treated as cancelled.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.