Sealed cover procedure in banks

The case in a nutshell:

1. Promotion in 1993 from Scale I to II held in sealed cover due to Criminal Case filed by CBI.

2 As per sealed cove procedure reveiew done in 1995, 1999/2000, 2002 & 2007 but the recommendation for release of adhoc promotion was ignored .

3. Aggrieved by this filed writ petition in 2008 and as per the direction adhoc prmotion was released in 2008.

4. Retired with full benefits in 2010.

5. Gor acquitted in 2014 on merits.

6. Claimed release of promotion w.e.f 1993, further promotion to higher grades denied due to non release of adhoc promotion despte recomendation and compensation for mental harrassment.

7. As there was no respoinse as well as wilful non compliance has filed Contempt of court writ in the High court of Mumbai in 2015 which is still due for hearing.

8 Threatened by the writ, the bank released the promtion (Scale I to II) held in sealed cover since 1993 and paid the arrears of salary with interest in January, 2017.

9. The bank has yet to consider my further claims for promorion to higher Scales (II-III-IV-V-VI) and I have written to them letter contents of which is appended.

Can anyone let me know what will be position of my claim legally and as to whether any prior judgment in this regard is there?

From:                                                                                                               20.01.2017

D. Nanda Kumar, B.Sc, CAIIB

D-501, Anand Garden CHSL.,

Anand Park, Kanderpada,

Dahisar (W), Mumbai-400068.

Mob. 9819339413

E’mai: dnandu2000@gmail.com

To

The Chairman & Managing Director,                                                                        

Dena Bank,

Dena Corporate Center,

C-10 Bandra Kurla Complex,

Mumbai-400 051

Dear Sir,

Sub.: Release of further promotions subsequent to release of  notional  promoion from Scale I to II which was held in sealed cover since 1993 & giving  adequate compensation to mitigate the injustice, ignominy and mental agony as well as trauma I was put through.

I humbly request you to refer to my earlier letter dated 11.07.2014 wherein I had claimed as under:

1. To give promotion from Scale I to II w.e.f 12.04.1993 the date on which my promotion dates should have been fixed notionally and not 24.11.2008, from which day the Bank had released in the year 2008, with the benefit of arrears
2. I am eligible and entitled to receive the arrears with all consequential benefits from 12.04.1993. In short I should have been paid arrears from 12.04.1993 for about 17 years.
3. I may bring it to your kind attention that I was acquitted on merits without any benefit of doubt in the prosecution case filed against me by CBI after getting sanction from the bank. The Bank, being a model employer, should have and ought to have released all the benefits on its own in the year 2014. However, having not been considerate, despite my acquittal on merits, I was forced to approach High Court of Mumbai as all my letters to the bank requesting for releasing the monetary benefits did not yield any action including not even acknowledging the letters in the year 2014/15/16. The  High court of Mumbai as you are aware upheld my petition and directed the bank by its judgment dated 01.10.2008 as under:

Quote: On the facts therefore, it is clear that the committee as required had consulted CBI.  It cannot be that every time, the review committee meets, it has once again to reconsider the reply given by the CBI in respect of the same employee. Once the committee had given its report, it is for the Chairman and Managing Director to take a decision based on the report of the committee. That decision has not yet been taken.

            In our opinion, under these circumstances, the only relief that can be granted is to direct the Chairman/Managing Director to consider the report submitted by the Review Committee from time to time and to take a decision within eight weeks from today. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner should be given promotion from the date the sealed cover procedure was followed or at least from the date of the report of the committee. The Petitioner for the first time approached this court in the year 2008. The promotion made in such a case is an ad hoc promotion for six months, to be reviewed from time to time. The promotion is subject to the result of the Select committee having found the Petitioner eligible for the promotion where the sealed cover procedure was followed. If the Petitioner has not been found eligible for promotion, the question of promoting him would not arise merely based on the sealed cover procedure. If the Petitioner has been selected by the Selection Committee, then the Chairman and Managing Director will consider the case of the Petitioner within eight weeks as set out in this judgment. Needless to say that subsequently, if the Petitioner is exonerated or discharged or acquitted from the charges, the Petitioner’s promotion would be considered in terms of the rules in force pertaining to sealed cover procedure.  Unquote.

Cont..2

:2:

1. After the judgment of acquittal came in March, 2014 I once again made many requests for releasing the benefits due to me. This also did not result in any action on the part of bank. And consequently with heavy heart I was compelled and forced to file Contempt petition which is due any time now for hearing.
2. In the mean time Bank released part benefit but the bank is required to consider my notional promotions as per terms of the rules in force pertaining to sealed cover procedure as under:

Scale II                        1993

Scale III                       1998

Scale IV                      2003

Scale V                       2006

Scale VI                      2008

1. It may be submitted that the prosecution was not requested by the undersigned but it was on the part of the Bank in having given sanction without considering the facts of the case at that point of time resulting in me having lost the entire Banking career besides the ignominy I had to face in the social life.  Any right thinking institution that too, a Public Sector institution should be considerate to its employees instead of keeping silent, acting partly that too under compulsory circumstances which is painful and no employee should be made to undergo the agony I had undergone.
2. I pray that at least now the bank will be considerate in upholding the rights of an honest Officer who had joined this noble bank with lot of dreams and expectations to serve his best. My credentials can be checked with any of the Executives present and past which will reveal the truth (as well as by going through the performance since 1995 to 2010 listed out in the annexure (as submitted to review committee in 2007) with due updation).

            As regards the third demand the Bank has tacitly admitted to my right for adequate compensation to mitigate the injustice, ignominy and mental agony as well as trauma I was put through due to their acts of commission and omission resulting in the injustice, ignominy and mental agony as well as trauma I was put through by way of reply dated 09.07.2015 to my query under RTI act, 2005 as under:

Query: What is the position of claim (as above).

Reply: This is being dealt within the Bank’s existing guidelines.

The same need to be considered now as per quantification mentioned in my reminder dated 01.10.2014. The acts of commission and omission are listed out in the annexure to this letter.

Please arrange to acknowledge receipt, intervene in the matter as competent authority and arrange to release the promotions with back dates and also set right the records by giving respect to Bank’s promotion policy. I shall thank you for your kind intervention and favourable action.

 Thanking you

Yours faithfully

(D.Nanda Kumar)

Annexue

Omissions:

1.Despite recording my non involvement by stating in the review committee findings that “D.Nanda Kumar had merely followed the practice prevailing in the department and as instructed by the Chief Officer. There is also no other material evidence available in the department to show that Shri. D.Nanda Kumar acted as alleged by the CBI” the adhoc promotion duly recommended by the review committees constituted by the CMD in 1998, 1999/2000, 2001 and in 2007was deined to me without assigning any reason whatsoever by the competent authority i.e CMD.

2.Due to the above, my rights to appear in the further promotion process/es in which my juniors were called was denied esp. by letter dated 11.02.1998.

Commission:

1.It is stated by the Bank in writing to the Advocate on panel as under in December, 2014

Shri. D Nanda Kumar has got retired on attaining superannuation on 31.03.2010. In this circumstances whether he is eligible for promotion to MMG Scale II with retrospective effect and arrears of salary, on the ground of his exoneration by CBI Court in a criminal case, which was the basis of withholding his result in sealed cover. The files containing papers/documents in respect of promotions including sealed cover are unavailable with the Bank. It is feared to be lost/destroyed in the flood in July, 2005. No other records corroborating the inference of his suitability for promotion is available with the department. Under these circumstances, whether the Bank can deny the conferment of promotion to Shri. D. Nanda Kumar with effect from back date despite the fact that this would amount to giving him “benefit of doubt”.

This statement by the Bank becomes an act of commission due to the following:

1.Review committees in 1995, 1999, 2001, and 2007 recommended for Ad-hoc promotion. The above committees recommended for grant of Ad-hoc promotion subject to eligibility.

2.As per judgement in case no. 1614 of 2008 “The promotion is subject to the select committee having found the petitioner eligible for the promotion where the sealed cover procedure was followed. If the petitioner has not been found eligible for promotion, the question of promoting him would not arise merely based on the sealed cover procedure.” The Bank released the Ad-hoc promotion in November, 2008 vide note dated 19.11.2008 which inter alia means that the eligibility criteria were fulfilled in my case.

3.And till then there was no mention anywhere/any time of loss of papers relating to the sealed cover and/or non availability of any other records corroborating the inference of my suitability for promotion with the department (HRM).

4.Further, the reply to my RTI query dated 09.05.2015 was as under as per letter dated 09.07.2015.

Query                                                                                                             Reply