- (1.) THIS is an application for issuance of notices upon respondent No. 2, National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development (in short 'NABARD') as also respondent No. 3, Union of India, Ministry of Finance. However, from the order dated 5.1.2006, it appears that notices had already been issued by the Court to respondents 2 and 3 but in spite of the same, the respondents 2 and 3 had not chosen to appear. Besides this, respondents 2 and 3 are formal respondents and, therefore, fresh service of notice upon respondents 2 and 3, in our view, is not required to be issued. If the appellant is banking upon any order passed by the respondent No. 2, NABARD, it was the duty of the appellant to produce the relevant document. Hence, fresh service of notice upon respondents 2 and 3 is not required to be issued. This Interlocutory application is, therefore, rejected. L.P.A. No. 779 of 2004
(2.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank against the judgment and order dated 5.4.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2744 of 1995 (R) by which the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1, namely, Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank Officers Association had been allowed whereby the orders dated 22.10.1993 and 6.5.1995 passed by the appellant were quashed and set aside. Consequently, it was directed to reimburse the expenses to the members of the respondents -association on account of the travelling undertaken by the officers by way of conveyance allowance. The matter which emerges out of a writ petition is that the respondent -officers' association of Ranchi Kshetriya Gramin Bank (in short "RKGB') had filed a writ petition for quashing a letter as annexed as Annexure 10 issued by the appellant, RKGB by virtue of which representation filed by the petitioner -respondent No. 1 herein was rejected holding therein that the Management of RKBG had neither denied nor withdrawn the benefit of conveyance allowance to the officers' association of the respondent No. 1 but actual reimbursement of expenses on conveyance could be allowed in favour of the members of the association. Merely the mode and basis of payment towards reimbursement of conveyance allowance had been changed by the appellant -Management of RKGB.
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge having scrutinized the matter was pleased to notice that the appellant RKGB had denied conveyance allowance to the members of the association of respondent No. 1 herein which prompted them to file writ petition before this Court, Vide C.W.J.C. No. 3632 of 1993 (R) and the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 4.4.1995 whereby order passed by the RKGB dated 20.10.1993 denying the conveyance allowance to the members of the respondents -association was quashed and set aside. However, the learned Single Judge directed the Chairman of the appellant, RKGB to consider the matter afresh after granting opportunity to the representative of the respondents -association and to pass a fresh speaking order. In view of this order, the appellant permitted respondents -association to address on the point and thereafter passed an order stating that the members of the respondents -association had not been denied the conveyance allowance and merely the mode and manner of reimbursement was changed in the sense that the respondents had been directed to furnish proof of actual payment of the travelling expenses on the basis of which the conveyance allowance was claimed. This fact compelled the members of the respondents -association to file a fresh writ petition, vide C.W.J.C. No. 2744 of 1995 (R), out of which this appeal arises, wherein members of the respondents -association reiterated that they are entitled to conveyance allowance which has been denied to them, by a circular issued by the RKGB dated 20.10.1993 stipulating therein that they will be entitled to reimbursement of the conveyance allowance only if the proof of actual travelling expenses is furnished by the members of the association. The respondents -association, therefore, challenged the circular as also the order by which conveyance allowance was denied. It was stated that the same was allowed by the learned Single Judge after recording the findings that the respondent -appellant herein was not justified in issuing the circular by changing the mode in any manner regarding conferment of the benefit of reimbursement of expenses incurred on travelling in case of members of the respondents -association. Specific reason was assigned by the leaned Single Judge to the effect that the Sponsoring Bank of the appellant is the respondent No. 2, i.e., Bank of India. If the sponsoring Bank would have made any change in the mode and manner with regard to reimbursement of expenses on travelling undertaken by the officers of the sponsoring bank, then a circular issued by the appellant Bank changing the mode and manner of reimbursement could have been said to be justified in case of the officers of the appellant bank also. But if the said mode has not been changed by the sponsoring bank, then the appellant bank had no authority to issue a circular and introduce a condition for reimbursement. Taking this view, learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition filed by the respondent against which this appeal has been preferred.;