STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: In a suit filed by Vijay Kumar & ors against Jammu & Kashmir Bank for declaring result notification: Associate Executive (Scale-1) to Executive (Scale-ll) baring reference: JKB/HRD /Rectt/ 2022-751 dated 07.03.2022 issued by defendant No:3, whereby and where under defendant No:5 to 793 have been ordered to be promoted from Associate Executive (Scale 1) to Executive (Scale-ll) in the pay scale of Rs. 48170-1740/1-49910-1990/10-69810as 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 where under defendant No>794 to 910 have been ordered to be promoted from dropee officers from Scale-1 to Scale-ll as illegal and null and void; mandatory Injunction directing the defendant No:1 to 3 to promote 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, the Principal District Judge Jammu Sanjay Parihar after hearing senior Adv Abhinav Sharma with Advocates Abhimanyu Sharma and Nikhil Choudhary for the plaintiffs, issued notice to Chairman J&K Bank and others in the main suit as well in application for grant of ad-interim relief. Meanwhile, the defendants were 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, which is against promotion policy of bank. In fact, the bank has resorted to pick and chose and has deprived plaintiffs of acquiring promotional benefits as they were similarly situated with 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 malafide exercise of powers by defendants.
