news details |
|
|
| DB dismisses Parvez Nengroo's plea for reinstatement as JKB Chairman | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Nov 1: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Comprising Chief Justice N Kotishwar Singh and Justice MA Chowdhary today uphold the judgment of writ Court and dismissed the LPA filed by Parvez Nengroo who seeking for reinstatement as JK Bank Chairman.
The appellant/petitioner besides throwing challenge to his removal as Director nominated by the Government to the Board of Directors of the Bank and as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Bank has also claimed that he as Chairman/Chief Executive Officer of the Bank continued to be in service of the Bank unabated and uninterrupted and therefore, so to be governed by the service conditions of the Bank and that since the Bank the instrumentality of the State is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court, the appellant had in fact challenged the communication dated 09.07.2019, whereby he was conveyed that he is deemed to have retired from service of the Bank w.e.f 06.10.2016, the writ petition is maintainable.
Since the petitioner was deemed to have retired from the service of the Bank in terms of rule/regulation 2(k) and 2(l) of the pension regulations, therefore, his tenure as being the Chairman/CEO of the respondent no.2-J&K Bank is not governed by the service rules of the Bank and any dispute sought to be raised by him in relation thereto including the challenge to communication dated 09.07.2019 could not be gone into by this court. The writ court, in our considered opinion in view of the matter, has rightly held the writ petition not to be maintainable to that extent. The other reliefs prayed for by the appellant/petitioner in the writ petition being relatable to the two prayers for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the two communications dated 08.06.2019 and 09.07.2019, the petition for those reliefs as well would not survive before the court in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The writ court, to the extent of the prayer of the petitioner for a direction to the respondents for release of all prerequisites and benefits due and payable to him in law is concerned, while referring Chapter II of the Pension Regulations which contains the pension regulations and provide for the application and eligibility of said Regulations, held that the appellant/petitioner, being in the service of the Bank till 06.10.2016 the date he was deemed to have retired from the service of the Bank was eligible to pensionary benefits under the pension regulations in question in lieu of his service till 06.10.2016 and that the pensionary benefits shall be considered to be granted in accordance with the applicable rules.
DB after hearing both the sides in length, observed that It has been brought to the notice of this court by the respondents which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner that after removal of the appellant/petitioner from the position of nominated Director on the Board of Directors and Chairman/CEO of the respondent-J&K Bank, he had participated in another exercise for appointment of new Chairman/CEO of the Bank and had also applied after he being conveyed his deemed retirement on the date he was appointed as Chairman/CEO of the respondent J&K Bank had applied for grant of pensionary benefits up to that date. The appellant/petitioner has thus almost reconciled to what has been decided by the respondents Government of J&K and the management of the J&K Bank.
The filing of writ petition and after judgment in the writ petition further challenge through the instant intra court appeal and also simultaneously reconciling to the decisions taken by the respondents, is a classic display of the principle of "Approbate and Reprobate" on the part of appellant/petitioner as this principle of "Approbate and Reprobate" if put into a common understanding means that a person shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold in terms of his/her relationship/position vis-a-vis other person, who get related to said relationship/position. This principle aims to mean, that an act of duality on the part of a person in his conduct/relationship vis-a-vis another person is nothing but dubious which no law can cherish. The principle of "Approbate and Reprobate" has been well elucidated and explained by the Apex Court.
DB further observed that having regard to the whole gamut of pleadings, rival submissions and the perusal of the record as well as the impugned judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has decided the matter perfectly in consonance with law after a threadbare discussion on all aspects of the case and has rightly held that the appointment of the appellant/petitioner as Chairman/CEO of the Bank was contractual in its nature and, as such, there being no applicability of the service law, a writ is not maintainable to the extent of determining his removal as Government nominee Director, Chairman/CEO of the respondent no.2-J&K Bank and his continuance from a career level post to board level post is not being amenable to writ jurisdiction, is not maintainable and that no case is made out by the appellant/petitioner which warrants any interference in the impugned judgment passed by the writ court which is upheld. As a consequence, the appeal is dismissed along with all connected applications.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
