news details |
|
|
| Court restrains J&K Bank from posting of 905 following their promotions | | |
Early Times Report
JAMMU, May 9: In a suit filed by Vijay Kumar & others against Jammu & Kashmir Bank for declaring result Notification: Associate Executive ( Scale-1) to Executive ( Scale-ll) baring reference: JKB/HRD /Rectt/ 2022-751 dated 7-3-2022 issued by defendant 3, whereby and where under defendant 5 to 793 have been ordered to be promoted from Associate Executive ( Scale 1) to Executive ( Scale-ll) in the pay scale of Rs. 48170-1740/1-49910¬1990/10-69810 as illegal and void ab-initio; declaring result notification: Associate Executive ( Scale-1) to Executive (Scale-ll) bearing reference No: JKB/HRD/Rectt./2022-935 dated 15.04.2022 issued by defendant No:3, whereby and whereunder defendant No>794 to 910 have been ordered to be promoted from dropped officers from Scale-1 to Scale-ll as illegal and null and void; Mandatory Injunction directing the defendant No:1 to 3 to promote the plaintiffs from Associate Executive ( Scale-1) to Executive ( Scale-ll) w.e.f 07.03.2022 and with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant No. 1 to 3 from giving effect to orders.
Principal District Judge Jammu Sanjay Parihar issued notice at Chairman J&K Bank and others in the main suit as well in application for grant of ad-interim relief. In the meanwhile and subject to objections of other side, the defendants are directed not to proceed for further postings/ adjustments of defendants 5 to 910 following their promotion in terms of impugned orders, till next date of hearing.
The plaintiffs herein are aggrieved of promotional order passed in favour of promotee defendants in terms of order impugned, hereinabove, precisely on the ground that their promotional order has been passed in violation of approved seniority inasmuch as against the promotional policy of the bank; In fact the bank has resorted to pick and chose and has deprived the plaintiffs of acquiring promotional benefits as they were similarly situated with the promote officers; That in the first order defendants 794 to 910 were not promoted on account of inferior APRs but subsequently they too have been promoted, this shows that the promotion order suffers from the malafide exercise of powers by the official defendants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
