Dismissed

Chairman/M.D. Uco Bank and Others v. Ashish Agarwal

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2019SPLA/1254/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Appeal was dismissed. The bench held that without authority showing retrospective effect, the new compassionate appointment scheme cannot apply to pending applications, affirming the Single Judge's decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside order dated 20.06.2000 setting aside that order was set aside is indirectly upheld; interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Chairman/M.D. Uco Bank and Others Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1254 of 2005 Appellant :- Chairman/M.D. Uco Bank And Others Respondent :- Ashish Agarwal Counsel for Appellant :- Yashwant Singh,Manoj Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Singh,Devashish Mitra,P.K. Kashyap

¶3

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for appellant. None appeared on behalf of respondents though called in revise, hence I proceed to decide this appeal after hearing learned counsel for appellant.

¶5

This intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1952") has arisen from judgment dated 09.09.2005 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2223 of 2002, setting aside order dated 20.06.2000 passed by appellantBank and directing Competent Authority to reconsider claim of petitioner and pass fresh order on petitioner's representation for compassionate appointment.

¶6

Learned Single Judge has found that petitioner-respondent Ashish Agrawal was non suited on the ground that he has not eligible as per Clause 7 (a) of the Scheme dated 21.09.1999 though petitioner-respondent's father died on 23.01.1999 and the application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 22.02.1999 i.e. prior to enforcement of Scheme dated 21.09.1999. Learned Single Judge has held that petitionerrespondent ought have been considered in accordance with the earlier scheme and not as per subsequent one.

¶7

Despite repeated query, learned counsel for appellant could not place law to show that new scheme which was not having any retrospective effect, will be applicable on pending applications also. In absence of any such authority laid before

¶8

this Court, we do not find any good reason to take different view in the matter than what has been taken by learned Single Judge.

¶9

Appeal lacks merit. Dismissed accordingly.

¶10

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶11

Order Date :- 12.3.2019 Manish Himwan

Chairman/M.D. Uco Bank and Others v. Ashish Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chairman/M.D. Uco Bank and Others v. Ashish Agarwal

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

Agya Ram Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Others

Nasrin Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Mamta Shahi and Another Vs the Union of India and 5 Others

M/S New Victoria Mills and Others Vs Shri Kant Arya

Anil Kumar Rana Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Santosh @ Babu Vs State of U.P.