2025:JHHC:33818 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S). No. 5142 of 2012 ------- Arjun Prasad Singh, son of late Sitaram Singh, resident of UCO Bank, Near BIT Mesra, P.O. Mesra, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi. ………..Petitioner Versus 1. The UCO Bank through the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having Head Office Kolkata, 10 B.T.M. Sarini, Kolkata-700001. 2. The General Manager, UCO Bank, Kolkata, 3&4, D.D. Block, Sector-I, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064. 3. The Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Sainik Market, Main Road, Ranchi. 4. The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, B.I.T. Mesra, B.I.T Mesra, P.O. Mesra, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi. ……….. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Advocate ---- 28/ 10.11.2025 The instant application has been preferred for following relief: (A) For quashing of letter dated 24.08.2012 issued from the office of the concerned respondent depriving this petitioner for participating in promotional examination of Head Casher-One Line, Training for Promotion Test. (B) For issuance of direction to the respondent to allow this petitioner one chance for participating in the said examination as relaxation given to the permanently debarred employees in the matter of reversion. (C) For taking into consideration his date of birth and provision made under para 3.4.2 of the said Promotional Policy Settlement, 1988. (D) For further issuance of direction to the respondent for taking lenient view considering his length of service of 28 years and he was not availed any promotional benefit. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 15.12.1980 in the respondent-Bank at Jharia, Dhanbad. He participated in promotion process to the next higher post i.e. Junior Management Grade (Scale-I) and qualified the same. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Junior Management Grade (Scale-I) w.e.f. 2025:JHHC:33818 2 31.03.2009 and was directed to join Zonal Office at Hyderabad (A.P.). Thereafter, the petitioner joined the promoted post and on 26.06.2009 he requested for reversion in view of Clause-3.8.3 of Promotional Policy Settlement for Workmen Staff, 1988. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in Clause- 3.8.3 it has been categorically indicated that when an employee on promotion to Officers’ cadre refuses the promotion or seeks reversion during the period of promotion, he would be debarred for promotion for two years from the date of such refusal. Relying upon this clause, he submits that the action of the respondent-Bank in considering that period of non-entitlement of two year, they have considered 5 years which has adversely affected the entire career of the petitioner. 4. He further submits that the law is well settled that the Policy which would be in vogue at the time of cause of action, the same would be applicable and no amendment would affect the same. As such, the instant application be allowed and respondent-Bank be directed to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner. 5. He further submits that now the grievance of the petitioner only remains for payment of monetary benefits, inasmuch as, the petitioner had already retired on 01.03.2017. 6. In reply to the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank draws attention of the Court towards a circular dated 11.04.2006, wherein there was an amendment in the existing provision of para-3.8.3 of Promotional Policy Settlement for Workmen Staff, 1988 and contends that the period of debarment for 2 years was enhanced to 5 years; as such, the petitioner was not entitled for promotion and accordingly no promotional benefits would accrue and all other monetary benefits have already been extended to the petitioner. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, especially, the Promotional Policy Settlement for Workmen Staff, 1988 and Circular dated 11.04.2006. Since entire lis is with the interpretation of two 2025:JHHC:33818 3 circulars; for brevity, relevant portion of Promotional Policy Settlement for Workmen Staff, 1988 is extracted herein below: “3.8 General Conditions: 3.8.1. ………… 3.8.2. ………… 3.8.3. Reversion a) Where an employee on promotion to officers’ cadre refuses the promotion or seeks reversion during the period of promotion, he would be debarred for promotion for two years from the date of such refusal/ reversion. ………………” 8. The contention of the petitioner is that though the original settlement dated 13.04.1988 clearly indicates that the debarment of any person who refuses the promotion is only for 2 years but the respondents has debarred him for 5 years. 9. The case of the respondents is on the reliance of Circular No. CHO/PAS/01/2006-07 dated 11.04.2006. For brevity, the same is extracted herein below: Existing provision in Para 3.8.3 of PPS Amendments a) Where an employee on promotion to officers’ cadre refuses the promotion or seeks reversion during the period of probation, he would be debarred for promotion for two years from the date of such refusal/reversion. In such case he would be reverted to his substantive cadre, which he occupied prior to his promotion on emoluments that he would have drawn in that cadre as if he was not promoted. b) Employees who seek reversion after expiry of probation period may be allowed reversion at the discretion of the Bank. In such case the concerned employee shall forfeit permanently his chance for promotion to officers' cadre, a) Where an employee on promotion to officers’ cadre refuses the promotion or seeks reversion during the period of probation, he would be debarred for promotion for five years from the date of such refusal/reversion. In such case he would be reverted to his substantive cadre, which he occupied prior to his promotion subject to availability of similar vacancy in the same seniority region. However, if no similar vacancy is available, he will then be reverted only as a clerk and be posted in the same seniority region. No change. Existing provision will continue. 2025:JHHC:33818 4 and shall be posted in the capacity of a clerk, notwithstanding his occupying any functional special allowance post prior to his promotion. His name will be included in the common seniority list of eligible employees in the clerical cadre for selection to functional special allowance posts under Bipartite Settlements after five years from the date of such reversion. NOTE: On reversion under both 3.8.3 (a) & (b) above such employees will work in both Cash and Accounts Departments NOTE: On reversion under both 3.8.3 (a) & (b) above such employees will work in both Cash and Accounts Departments. 10. From bare perusal of the Circular dated 11.04.2006, it is clear that there was an amendment in existing provision in para-3.8.3 of Promotional Policy Settlement for Workmen Staff, 1988, whereby the amendment was made with regard to period of debarment. In other words, vide provision in para-3.8.3 of Promotional Policy Settlement for Workmen Staff, 1988, there was debarment for only 2 years but in the amendment which came into effect on 11.04.2006, the said debarment was enhanced to 5 years and admittedly, the cause of action of the petitioner arose in 2009 when he was debarred for 2 years on the ground that he refused to take promotion. 11. As such, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that Circular dated 11.04.2006 would be applicable in the case of the petitioner and the action of the respondent-Bank in debarring the petitioner for 5 years is just and proper. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.V. Satheeshchandran Vs. General Manager, UCO Bank, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 653. However, after going through the said judgment it is apparent that the circular dated 11.04.2006 has not been considered for the obvious reason that this circular came into effect from 11.04.2006 and the circular which was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court was with regard to the Promotional Policy Settlement for Workmen Staff dated 2025:JHHC:33818 5 13.04.1988. Thus, the petitioner will not get any help from the judgment cited at bar. 13. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case no relief can be granted to the petitioner. However, if at all there is any monetary benefit which still remains to be paid to the petitioner, he will approach the concerned authority with a detailed calculation for payment of the same, if so advised. 14. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 10th November, 2025 Kunal Uploaded on 22 / 11 /2025