Disposed

Smt. Subhawati Devi v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 May 2023WRIA/8001/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding GPF and family pension for the deceased spouse, the Allahabad High Court held that litigation serves no purpose. It disposed of the matter by directing the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation to the Bank for a fresh decision within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation for her claim within 15 days.

Smt. Subhawati Devi Vs Union of India and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:113903

¶2

Court No. - 36

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8001 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Subhawati Devi Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Satish Chaturvedi,Sunil Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Shri Sandeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and learned ASGI for Union of India-respondent No. 1.

¶7

The petitioner, who is a legally wedded wife of one Shriram, has approached this Court claiming issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the application moved by the petitioner for release of payment of GPF, gratuity, leave encashment, family pension and other emoluments payable to the petitioner along with interest, consequent to the death of her husband who was working as Assistant Manager in the State Bank of India, Branch Maunath Bhanjan, District Mau and stated to have expired on 17.10.2016.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation of the petitioner addressed to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Maunath Bhanjan, District Mau is pending consideration.

¶9

Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submits that claim of the petitioner shall be decided by respondent No. 3, Regional Manager, State Bank of India, R.B.O.6, Varanasi, District Varanasi and the petitioner may file a fresh representation before the authority concerned, which shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶10

Considering the submissions advanced, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending and the same is accordingly, disposed of by requiring the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation clearly setting forth her claim for release of the terminal dues of her late husband addressed to respondent No. 3-Regional Manager,

¶11

State Bank of India, R.B.O.-6, Varanasi, District Varanasi within a period of 15 days from today.

¶12

In the eventuality of filing such a representation being filed within the time allowed, it is expected that the respondent No. 3- Regional Manager, State Bank of India, R.B.O.-6, Varanasi, District Varanasi shall proceed to decide the same after considering all aspects of the matter, by a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of service of representation along with certified copy of the order of this Court.

¶13

Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it shall be open for the respondent No. 3 to pass appropriate orders strictly, in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 23.5.2023 Ravi Prakash

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Subhawati Devi v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Subhawati Devi 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

Ramanand Bharti Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gaurav Gangwar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Satish Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Shailendra Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Khem Chandra (Assistant Teacher) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others