Kunnath Chandrasekharan v. State Bank of India

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **THURSDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 22ND BHADRA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 30054 of 2018-F** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **KUNNATH CHANDRASEKHARAN AGED 82 YEARS EX-OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, E-3 SIVAJI SAPHIRE, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **BY KUNNATH CHANDRASEKHARAN (PARTY IN PERSON)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE BANK OF INDIA**| |---|---| ||**STATE BANK BHAVAN, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, PIN-400 021,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.**| |**2**|**THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER**| ||**STATE BANK OF INDIA, ANNA SALAI,CHENNAI,PIN-600002.**| |**3**|**THE GENERAL MANAGER AND HEAD GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL**| ||**MACHINERY,**| ||**STATE BANK OF INDIA,LOCAL HEAD**| ||**OFFICE,POOJAPPURA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SMT.ANJU ANILKUMAR**| ||**SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH**| ||**SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK**| ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.B.S.SYMANTHAK AND SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH SC,SBI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **P.V.ASHA, J.** **---------------------------W.P.(C) No.30054 of 2018 ---------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of September, 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** **The petitioner, who resigned from the State Bank of India in the year 1980, has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the denial of promotion to him in the year 1967 and thereafter.** **2. According to the petitioner, he joined the Bank in the year 1957 as a Probationary Assistant. While working as Accountant-I in the year 1963 he volunteered for Army Service retaining his lien in the Bank and thereafter returned to the Bank in the year 1967. It is stated that during the period from 1964 to 1967, on the basis of deputation to Indian Army, on selection by the Services Selection Board, he was commissioned in the Indian Army in 1964 as Second Lieutenant and he served as Engineer Platoon Commander during the period form 1964 to 1965. It is also stated that he was involved in an operation against Pakisthan in the Sialkot sector. According to the petitioner, he worked in the Army on deputation basis with the permission of the 1[st] respondent Bank and he rejoined duty in the year 1967 as Accountant. The petitioner submits** W.P.(C) No.30054/18 :4: **that by the time he rejoined, several of his juniors were granted promotion. However he was denied promotion despite his request. It is further stated that he worked as Manager at Kavali in Andhrapradesh. He was sent on deputation to Tanzania when he worked as Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Finance Management till 1980 and after he completed 5 years of foreign assignment, he chose to resign from service in the year 1980 at a time when he had completed 22.5 years of service.** **3. According to the petitioner, he opted military service on account of his patriotism; denial of promotion on the ground of such a deputation, refusing to reckon the period of deputation towards seniority, is illegal. The petitioner claims that he had approached the authorities under the 1[st] respondent with a series of representations requesting for his financial benefits. He refers to the representations submitted by him on 08.03.1996 and on 04.04.2011. After submitting the representation Ext.P1 on 04.08.2011 he approached this court in WP(C) No.7310 of 2012. This court as per Ext.P2 judgment directed the 3[rd] respondent to consider his representation and to pass orders after affording him an opportunity of hearing. The** W.P.(C) No.30054/18 :5: **petitioner further submits that he had issued Ext.P3 notice through his lawyer on 22.6.2018 to which he received Ext.P4 reply. In Ext.P3 lawyer notice it was alleged that the 1[st] respondent had insulted the petitioner by not considering him for promotion without considering the notification issued by the Government of India during the time of declaration of emergency and without considering the army service rendered by the petitioner. In the lawyer notice it was claimed that the petitioner shall be granted compensation for emoluments from 1963 to 1980 on account of the denial of promotion in addition to payment of damages for the mental agony suffered by him. The petitioner has produced Ext.P4 letter received by him thereafter in which he was informed that his representation was already disposed of and that the claim raised by the petitioner was not tenable. Ext.P5 lawyer notice was sent thereafter in which it is stated that the lawyer notice dated 22.06.2018 was with reference to the claim for compensation towards loss of emoluments from 1963 to 1980 and for denial of promotion. The petitioner has filed this writ petition** ## **thereafter seeking the following directions:** > _i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 1[st] respondent to grant the petitioner suitable compensation for the effect on his_ W.P.(C) No.30054/18 :6: _emoluments from 1963 to 1980 as a result of 1[st] respondent's arbitrary omission to consider the petitioner for promotions to which he was otherwise eligible during his Army service and the cumulative effect of such promotions on his service after joining the army on deputation from the 1[st] respondent in 1963 together with interest at a reasonable rate._ - _ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 1[st] respondent to pay damages of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the petitioner due to the callous and inhuman attitude of the 1[st] respondent._ ## **4. According to the petitioner, since he had opted for** **Army service with the permission of the respondents retaining his lien in the Bank, he was liable to be considered for promotion during the period of deputation along with and in preference to his juniors. On the other hand, on rejoining duty after rendering Army service, the respondents provided him in the post of Accountant a post inferior to that in which he was working prior to deputation. Petitioner claims that as per clause 4.10 of Government of India Department of Personnel and Training Instructions and Guidelines on Seniority, the military service rendered by the Civil Government Servants during emergency is liable to be counted towards seniority in their civil posts and in case such a government servant is promoted to a higher post during his military service, his military service from the date of such promotion would be counted towards his seniority in the higher post. According** W.P.(C) No.30054/18 :7: **to petitioner these instructions were applicable to SBI also and he should have been promoted in preference to his juniors. According to him the denial of promotion has shattered his legitimate expectation and therefore he is liable to be compensated for the mental agony suffered by him apart from the financial loss caused to him. According to him the inaction of the 1[st] respondent emotionally affected the health of the petitioner resulting in acute depression. Therefore he claims compensation.** **5. I heard the petitioner who appeared in person and carefully considered the pleadings and contentions.** **6. Unfortunately the 82 year old petitioner's claim is for compensation towards loss of emoluments for the period from 1963 to 1980 consequent to denial of promotion during the period from 1964-1967 or at any rate before 1980 prior to his resignation from SBI. Though it appears from the pleadings that the juniors of petitioner were granted promotion, overlooking him, he failed to establish his right at the relevant time. Petitioner has been sleeping over his rights all these years while he was in service before he tendered resignation in the year 1980.** **7. It is also pertinent to note that he has also a** W.P.(C) No.30054/18 :8: **complaint that he was not given any service benefits when he admits that he tendered resignation in 1980 and went abroad. It is well settled that resignation entails forfeiture of past service.** **8. At any rate the prayer in the writ petition is for compensation from the respondents towards the denial of promotion. As long as the illegality in the denial of promotion is not established, no question of compensation arises. Even for seeking compensation on establishing such illegality, the claim of the petitioner, through a writ petition filed in the year 2018, is hopelessly time barred.** **9. The writ petition, which is filed in the year 2018 for compensation towards loss of emoluments for the period from 1963 to 1980 is time barred.** **10. Law is well settled by a catena of decisions that those who are sleeping over their rights are not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In** _**P.S. Sadasivaswamy**_ **v.** _**State of T.N :(1975) 1SCC 152**_ **, the apex court while considering a claim for promotion raised after a period 14 years, held that it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article** W.P.(C) No.30054/18 :9: **226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. in** _**Bhoop Singh v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 136**_ **the apex court held that inordinate and unexplained delay or laches is by itself a ground to refuse relief to a petitioner, irrespective of the merit of the claim, especially in service matters. In a catena of cases including the judgment in** _**Union of India v. Chaman Rana, (2018) 5 SCC 798, the apex court reiterated the view in the judgment in Sadasivaswamy's case (supra) and held that**_ **those who are not vigilant in agitating their rights at the earliest point of time are not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution and that even filing of repeated representations would not revive a cause of action. The apex court found that such interference on belated claims would have administrative implications apart from the financial burden on the Government. Even though there is no hard and fast rule or any time limit fixed for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and each case has to be considered on** W.P.(C) No.30054/18 :10: ## **merits, there is no explanation for the delay.** **11. In this case no claim is seen made while petitioner was in service after he re-joined after deputation in 1967 till his resignation in 1980. The first representation he claims to have submitted is in 1996. Again he remained silent till 2011 to submit his next representation. Even though petitioner submitted that he was unable to take up the matter because of acute depression, he was employed abroad after his resignation. When even repeated representations do not revive any cause of action, there are not even repeated representations. If at all petitioner was illegally denied promotion, he allowed things to go without taking up the matter in time.** **Therefore I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at this distance of time.** ## **Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.** **Sd/-** **P.V.ASHA** **JUDGE** rkc W.P.(C) No.30054/18 :11: ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 4/08/2011** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C)7310/2012,DATED 02/04/2012 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWHYER'S NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER,DATED 22/06/2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT,DATED 17/07/2018 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH HIS LAWYER, DT.23.7.18 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT,DATED 09/08/2018.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL**