Disposed

Rajesh Kumar Mishra v. Chairman Zila Shkari Bank Ltd. Sitapur and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024/4922/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking salary and GPF payment from 2012. Petitioner alleged employment subsequent to superannuation in 2016. Bench raised factual doubt regarding employment but granted liberty to approach bank authorities for fresh representation. Petition disposed of without adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to make fresh representation before Respondent No. 2 within 8 weeks.

Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs Chairman Zila… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45081

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4922 of 2024 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra Respondent :- Chairman Zila Shkari Bank Ltd. Sitapur And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manju Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite party no. 3. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite parties no. 1, 2 & 4 stands dispensed with.

¶6

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the opposite parties for payment of salary to petitioner w.e.f. July, 2012 at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month and GPF amount of Rs. 1,10,922/- alongwith interest in terms of Government order dated 28.09.2019.

¶7

At the very outset, learned State Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the petition does not disclose any relevant facts or any document be evidenced to substantiate the claim that petitioner was ever employed by the Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, District Sitapur.

¶8

However, learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention to various documents on record to substantiate that petitioner was in fact employed the bank and has superannuated on 03.09.2016 on the post of Secretary of the Bank. It is submitted that for the said grievance, petitioner has already submitted a representation but seek liberty to file a fresh representation before the authorities concerned. At present, learned counsel for petitioner restricts her prayer for a final decision with regard to same.

¶9

Considering innocuous prayer and since disputed questions of fact as involved without entering into merits of the case, liberty is granted to petitioner to make a fresh representation before opposite party no. 2 i.e. General Manager and Chief Executive Officer Zila Sahkari Bank, Sitapur who shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority.

¶10

With aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 3.7.2024 Satish

¶12

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajesh Kumar Mishra v. Chairman Zila Shkari Bank Ltd. Sitapur and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Mishra v. Chairman Zila Shkari Bank Ltd. Sitapur 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Basic Education Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Alpana Tewari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 5 Others

Arpana Kumari (Arpana) Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 6 Others

Narendra Deo Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Dairy Development U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Sanehi Yadav Vs District Inspectior of Schools a.Nagar and Anr.

Arun Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. and Ors.