Shankar Lal V. Assistant General Manager and Bank of Baroda

WRIA/13864/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Shankar Lal, a former cashier at Bank of Baroda, who was terminated in 2004 and subsequently filed multiple legal proceedings seeking redress for his termination and related salary disputes. Despite receiving a compassionate allowance of Rs. 9,20,526, Lal continued to seek additional salary payments and clarity on tax deductions. The bank contended that all dues were settled, as acknowledged by Lal at the time of the payment. The court, after reviewing the prolonged timeline and lack of specific claims regarding the salary dues, dismissed the petition, directing only the issuance of a tax deduction certificate if applicable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 808600 (HC-UTTAR_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Regulation 31 (1) of Regulations 1995
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANADI NARAYANA; SANDEEP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH DWIVEDI
• Keywords: Arrears of Salary; Income tax deduction; Mandamus; Termination of service; Compassionate allowance
• Section: 31(1)

Judgement Text

"Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13864 of 2017 Petitioner :- Shankar Lal Respondent :- Assistant General Manager And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- Anadi Krishna Narayana,Sandeep Kumar Singh Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Ashish Dwivedi for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh for the respondents. The writ petition has been filed for mandamus directing the respondents to pay the arrears/ differences of salary to the petitioner along with interest within stipulated time. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Cashier in Bank of Baroda. He was terminated from service by the order dated 30.9.2004 in the disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by the order dated 24.12.2003. Thereafter the petitioner filed Writ A No. 17276 of 2005 against the aforesaid order which was dismissed by order dated 14.11.2005. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in Special Appeal No. 7 of 2006, which was also dismissed by order dated 6.7.2008 and Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent-bank. When no order has been passed on the representation of the petitioner then the petitioner filed Writ A No. 17417 of 2016 , which was disposed of by order dated 25.4.2016 permitting the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent authority by virtue of Regulation 31 (1) of Regulations 1995 by filing representation, who was directed to decide it in accordance with law. In pursuance of the order dated 25.4.2016, the petitioner has moved a representation before the competent authority. When the representation of the petitioner was delayed then he filed Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4730 of 2016. When the notices in the contempt application has been issued then a compliance affidavit has been filed in which it has been mentioned that compassionate allowance to the tune of Rs. 9,20,526/- has been paid to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed fresh representation on 19.12.2016 alleging therein that amount paid to the petitioner does not include the amount of salary during period which he was not in service and Rs. 18249/- has been deducted towards income tax but it has not been informed to the petitioner whether it is deposited or not. When the representation of the petitioner has not been decided then present writ petition has been filed. The respondent-bank has taken stand in the present writ petition that compassionate allowance of Rs. 9,20,526/- has been paid to the petitioner and at the time of payment the petitioner has given in writing that no further dues remains to be un-paid. Therefore, the present representation as well as writ petition is not maintainable. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. Neither in the representation nor in the writ petition, the petitioner has mentioned exact period as well as amount of dues relating to salary of the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner was terminated from service in the year 2004 and now after more than 12 years, present representation claiming the arrears of salary has been filed. The allegation in this respect is thoroughly vague and no decision can be made on it. So far as the deduction towards income tax is concerned, the respondent-bank is directed that in case any deduction has been made towards payment of income tax then certificate in this respect be issued to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of . Order Date :- 12.1.2018 Rahul /- "