Dismissed

Smt. Meena Gaur and Others v. Uco Bank Lko. Thru. Its Zonal Manager and Others

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2024/504/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant challenged the dismissal of a writ petition seeking to restore their nominee status and initiate disciplinary action against a deceased in-service employee, whose previous divorce decree was set aside. The court held the matter premature as the employee was alive and disciplinary action is within the bank's sole discretion.

What did the court decide?

None; appeal dismissed as the issue was found to be premature and no direction could be issued to the bank for disciplinary action.

Smt. Meena Gaur and Others Vs Uco Bank Lko. Thru… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:77031-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 504 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Smt. Meena Gaur And Others Respondent :- Uco Bank Lko. Thru. Its Zonal Manager And Others

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Sri Harsh Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- Sri Raj Kumar Mishra and Ms. Upasna Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶7

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶8

This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. The appellants, aggrieved of the action of their husband/father, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Bank not to accept the prayer of their husband /father seeking VRS and restore the name of the appellants as nominee in the service records. Further prayer was made to take disciplinary proceedings against the respondent no.5.

¶9

Learned Single Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the relief as prayed for in the writ petition cannot be granted and consequently dismissed the writ petition with the observations that the appellants would be at liberty to pursue their remedy as are available under the Family Law.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellants attempted to make submissions that the conduct of respondent no.5 in seeking an ex-parte decree of dissolution of marriage with appellant no. 1 and contracting second marriage, which decree has been set aside under Order IX Rule 13 CPC by the Family Court, amounts to misconduct on his part and that the bank be directed to restore their names as nominee of the respondent no.5 in the record.

¶11

4.We are of the opinion that the issue raised by the appellants is presently premature, in as much as, their right, if any, as nominees would only arise in absence of respondent no.5, till such time the respondent no.5 is around, the appellants apparently have no cause of action. Further so far as seeking disciplinary action against the respondent no.5 is concerned, no such direction can be issued to the Bank as it is within the sole

¶12

discretion of the the Disciplinary /Appointing Authority to take action in case there is any violation of service/conduct Rules.

¶13

In that view of the matter, the observations made by learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition regarding the appellants being free to pursue their remedy before the Family Court cannot be faulted. Consequently there is no substance in the appeal and the same is therefore dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 21.11.2024 Asheesh/Harshita

¶15

(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Meena Gaur and Others v. Uco Bank Lko. Thru. Its Zonal Manager and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meena Gaur and Others v. Uco Bank Lko. Thru. Its Zonal Manager and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Labor Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Ors. Vs Dhani Ram

C/M Shesh Nath Vidyalaya Thru. Manager and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and Ors.

State of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Sugar Lucknow and Ors. Vs Vashistha Muni Mishra

Ram Chandra Maurya and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others

Akshay Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Govt. Sectt. Lko. and Others

Akshay Kumar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Govt. Sectt. Lko. and Others