Disposed

Kamlakar Pandey v. Chairman Life Insurance Corp., Mumbai and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2018WRIA/26231/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by an employee of LIC challenging a punishment order involving financial recovery and salary deduction. The Court directed the respondent to expedite the pending appeal and the pending representation regarding the punishment order and other违纪al chambers.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to look into the grievance raised in the appeal and pass appropriate orders within six weeks of certified copy.

Kamlakar Pandey Vs Chairman Life Insurance Corp… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26231 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Kamlakar Pandey Respondent :- Chairman Life Insurance Corp., Mumbai And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Goyal

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the LIC of India, Sri Manish Goyal.

¶6

The prayers made in this Writ Petition are being quoted hereinbelow:

¶7

"(i) To call for the records and to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner against the order of punishment which has been submitted on 24.09.2018 expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶8

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 02.05.2017 (Annexure No.6 to this writ petition) against the order dated 18.05.2016 (Annexure No.5 to this writ petition).

¶9

(iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to recover the amount of sundry recovery from the salary of the petitioner and respondents may be directed to take back the official car provided to the petitioner in his official capacity."

¶10

It has come out from the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the recovery of Rs.7 lakhs is being made against the petitioner by the order impugned and he has already filed an appeal which is pending for the past almost three months before the respondent no.2.

¶11

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that since the appeal is pending allegedly since September, 2018 with regard to the entire amount of Rs. 7 lakhs. Interest of justice would suffice, if this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 to look into the grievance raised in the appeal by the petitioner and pass appropriate order thereon.

¶12

This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 to look into the grievance as raised by the petitioner in this appeal and pass appropriate orders, if such orders have not already been passed, within a period of six weeks from the date of certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶13

Order Date :- 12.12.2018 Harshita

Kamlakar Pandey v. Chairman Life Insurance Corp., Mumbai and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlakar Pandey v. Chairman Life Insurance Corp., Mumbai and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amar Singh Supyal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hemraj Singh Rana Vs State Bank of India, Main Branch Moradabad and 3 Others

Durg Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Charan Singh and 7 Others Vs Deputy Managing Director and Corporate Development Officer, S.B.I. Mumbai and 3 Others

Chandra Bhan Singh and 6 Others Vs Deputy Managing Director and Corporate Development Officer, S.B.I., Mumbai and 3 Others

Hari Singh Baghel Vs State of U P and 3 Others