Disposed

Ravi Kumar v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2021WRIA/4901/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for compassionate appointment for his deceased father. The court held the bank was the competent authority to decide the claim at first instance and ordered a final decision within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directive to the competent authority of the respondent bank to take a final decision on the compassionate appointment application within two months.

Ravi Kumar Vs Union of India and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 89

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4901 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ravi Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gautam Baghel Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Amrish Sahai

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for petitioner on video link and Mr. Amrish Sahai, learned counsel representing respondents- 2 to 4 is also available on video link.

¶6

Notice on behalf of respondent-1 has been accepted by Additional Solicitor General of India. However, he is not available on audio-video link.

¶7

Petitioner Ravi Kumar has approached this Court by filing present writ petition for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent authorities to conclude the proceedings as initiated by them on 1.10.2018 regarding petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that Radha Krishna father of petitioner died in harness on 31.7.2018. He was working as peon/daftary in respondent bank. Subsequent to aforesaid, petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in respondent bank vide application dated 1.10.2018. In support of his claim, petitioner also gave up ex-gratia payment. Grievance of petitioner is that application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 1.10.2018 but inspite of the fact that 2 years and 11 months have rolled by, no final decision has been taken regarding claim of petitioner. It is thus submitted that denial can be by way of conduct. Such conduct on the part of respondent bank can not be sustained in law or fact.

¶9

Learned counsel for respondent bank could not dispute the submissions urged by learned counsel for petitioner as noted above.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of record, this court is of the view that claim of petitioner regarding compassionate appointment is to be decided by competent authority of respondent bank at the first instance. Consequently, in case a direction is issued to the competent

¶11

authority of respondent bank to decide the application of petitioner regarding grant of compassionate appointment, within a definite period, shall serve interest of justice.

¶12

Consequently, present writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to competent authority of respondent bank to take final decision on the application dated 1.10.2018 submitted by petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment within a period of two months from the date of production of certified/computer generated copy of this order. Copy of this order shall be filed by petitioner before respondent-3 General Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, by means of a notary affidavit within one week from today

¶13

With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands finally disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 1.7.2021 Arshad

Ravi Kumar v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar v. Union of India 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

Matsya Jivi Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Sayama Parveen and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandra Dev Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Reena Vs the Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Sudhakar Chauhan and 20 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others