Smt. Kum Kum Devi vs Union Bank of India Thru. General Manager (P) Competent Authority and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 2652 of 2024

Smt. Kum Kum Devi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union Bank Of India Thru. General Manager (P) Competent Authority And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arun Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mohd.Altaf Mansoor

¶7

Court No. - 18

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mohd. Altaf Mansoor, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

¶10

2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 02.03.2024 which was communicated vide letter dated 07.03.2024.

¶11

3. The contentions put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's husband was initially appointed in respondent-bank on 24.01.1990, on the post of Peon and on 23.01.1998, on sanctioned leave, he went out from the office, but he never returned back and it is stated by the office that several letters were sent, but no letter has been received by the family members. He submitted that after missing of the husband of the petitioner, the civil death was declared in year 2012. Further submission is that in fact the respondent-bank has failed to consider that the petitioner was on sanctioned leave and the civil death was declared in year 2012, therefore, the computation of the qualifying services has incorrectly been done, thus, the petitioner being qualified for the arrears of family pension, has been deprived of by the impugned order dated 02.03.2024, therefore, submission is that the order dated 02.03.2024 may be quashed and the competent authority may be directed to make payment, as per the entitlement of the

¶12

WRIA No. 2652 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

petitioner.

¶15

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank has opposed the aforesaid contentions and submitted that it is an admitted position between the parties that the petitioner was appointed in year 1990 on the post of peon and after sanctioned leave taken by the petitioner, on 23.01.1998, he never came back to the Bank and the civil death declared in 2012. He submitted that the petitioner has already moved a writ bearing Writ

¶16

Petition No. 89 (SS) of 2014, wherein, the following prayer were made:-

¶17

"(a) to issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of Certiorari by quashing the impugned order dated 09.12.2013 passed by the opposite party No.2 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) and the impugned order dated 27.11.2003 passed by the opposite party No.5 (Annexure no.15 to the writ petition).

¶18

(b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari by quashing the alleged dismissal w.e.f. 27.11.2003 as indicated in the letter dated 27.4.2006 contained in Annexure no. 16 and alleged dismissal w.e.f. 23.1.1998 as indicated in the letter dated 05.06.2006 contained in Annexure no.17 and alleged termination cause of CRS w.e.f. 27.11.2003 contained in Annexure no.19 to the writ petition if have been passed and issued to the deceased husband of the petitioner by summoning original from the opposite parties.

¶19

(c) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay entire dues with regard the post terminal benefits of deceased Mahadeo Prasad to the petitioner i.e. gratuity, Provident fund, Leave encashment, Family Pension and indulgence compensation along with other emoluments with 12% interest.

¶20

(d) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to appoint her elder son on any suitable post under Harness Scheme 1997 of the Bank.

¶21

(e) Issue any other writ or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶22

(f) To allow the writ petition with heavy cost."

¶23

5. Referring the aforesaid, he submitted that in the prayer, the quashing of the order dated 27.11.2003 by which, the petitioner was got compulsorily retired, with effect from 24.01.1990 has been made and further prayers are also made over there for the payment of post terminal benefits of the deceased, namely Mahadeo Prasad. He submits that the petitioner prior instituting the present petition, had also moved writ petition, Writ A No. 9894 of 2023, wherein, on innocuous prayer of the petitioner, he was given liberty to move representation and direction was made to decide the same.

¶24

WRIA No. 2652 of 2024

¶25

3

¶26

He added that the preliminary objection was not raised the then, before the Court, therefore, submission is that the present writ petition is hit by principal of Res judicata and the same is not maintainable.

¶27

6. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the husband of the petitioner disappeared, after he took sanctioned leave on 23.01.1998. Vide order dated 27.11.2003, the petitioner has been compulsory retired and the same was challenged by way of Writ Petition No. 89 of 2014, wherein, the prayer for quashing of the said order was made and further direction was sought for payment of post terminal benefits.

¶28

7. This Court finds that the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 89 (SS) of 2014 has been dismissed as withdrawn, but no liberty is given, for filing fresh petition, whereas, the fact remains that Writ A No. 9894 of 2023, was placed and on innocuous prayer and without putting the fact in the knowledge of the Court, the direction was given by this Court, for deciding the representation.

¶29

8. This Court has considered the settled law that the issue of maintainability can be raised at any stage. The Writ A No. 89 (SS) of 2014, which was filed against the order dated 27.11.2003, has attained finality by virtue of the order dated 21.11.2023 and that has not been assailed, at any stage, at higher forum/court, therefore, now it is not open for the petitioner to challenge either aforesaid order or further to seek the benefit of post retiral dues. In fact the question is not that what remains to be paid yet, but what is sought herein is the payment of the post terminal benefits. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-corporation that post terminal benefits payable to the petitioner has already been paid to him.

¶30

9. The order dated 27.11.2003 remains intact after the Writ A No. 89 ((SS) of 2014, has been dismissed as withdrawn providing, without any further liberty therefore, the same issue cannot be re-agitated/reopened before this Court, thus, the present petition is barred by Constructive Res-judicata,

¶31

WRIA No. 2652 of 2024

¶32

4

¶33

therefore, the same is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.

¶34

11. Consigned to the records.

¶35

January 28, 2026

¶36

Mayank