Disposed

Courts on Its Own Motion v. the Union of India, Thr.Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Delhi, Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2018PIL/28/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL filed on court's own motion, the High Court clarified that biometric scan is not necessary for life certificate verification. It directed banks to ensure lenient treatment toward elderly pensioners to avoid rude behaviour complaints.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to ensure lenient treatment for elderly pensioners and prevent rude behaviour.

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs the Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

Order

1701pil28.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 28/2016.

¶6

Court's on its own motion. - VERSUS-

¶7

The Union of India and others.

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶9

CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

¶10

DATE : JANUARY 17, 2018.

¶11

Heard Shri S.N. Bhattad, learned Amicus,

¶12

Ms. M. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and 1[a], Shri R.M. Bhangde, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 and Shri S.M. Ukey, learned Addl.G.P. for respondent no.3.

¶13

Perused Office Memorandum dated

¶14

14.11.2017, produced by Ms. Chandurkar, learned counsel for respondent.

¶15

Learned Amicus, points out that there is no affidavit in support of said memorandum. However, the memorandum is coming on record through proper

Order

1701pil28.16

custody i.e. Ministry of Personal, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare. The office memorandum dated 14.11.2017 is accompanied by earlier office memorandums dated 13.01.2015 and 30.06.2011. These Office Memorandums are taken on record of this proceedings and are marked as “Exhs. A,B and C” respectively for the purpose of identification.

¶20

Decision dated 14.11.2017 by respondent nos. 1 and 1[a], shows that verification of thumb impression or retina scan is not necessary while giving / verifying Life Certificate of a pensioner.

¶21

Learned Addl. G.P. upon instructions submits that such a Biometric scan is not made compulsory by the State Government for its pensioners. We take on record statement of learned Addl. G.P.

¶22

The grievance of rude behaviour by the Bank Officials also forms subject matter of this Public Interest Litigation. Rude behaviour with pensioners or with any customer of a Bank cannot be looked into here. It will be a misconduct which can be taken care

¶23

of by a concerned employer as per its discipline and

Order

1701pil28.16

appeal procedure.

However, looking to the old age and other problems which may arise on account of old age or lack of support, the pensioner may be in a different state of mind. Therefore, a more lenient treatment to them may be necessary. We therefore, direct respondents to keep in mind this aspect and to issue appropriate circular or directions to all its Banks so that such grievance of pensioners specifically does not arise again.

¶29

With these directions/observations and recording appreciation of good services rendered by learned Amicus, we dispose of the present Public Interest Litigation. No costs.

¶30

JUDGE JUDGE

¶31

Rgd.`

Courts on Its Own Motion v. the Union of India, Thr.Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Delhi, Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Courts on Its Own Motion v. the Union of India, Thr.Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Delhi, Ors.

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

Aniket Satish Amberkar S/O. Satish M. Amberkar Vs the State of Maharashtra Throiugh Its Principal Secretary Revenue Dept. and Ors.

Aniket Satish Amberkar S/O. Satish M. Amberkar Vs the State of Maharashtra Throiugh Its Principal Secretary Revenue Dept. and Ors.

Chhaya Shyam Adsure Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Onkarnath Lalchandji Karva vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh Dhondiram Devghare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dnyaneshwar Shankar Kale Vs Rajaram Parasram Godse and Ors.

Ramesh Dhondiram Devghare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Santosh Uttamrao Rasve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Laxmichand Salamatrai Sindhi (Mata) and Another Vs State of Maharashta, through Its Secretary, Revenue Department, Mumbai and 4 Others

Prof. Mahadeo S/O Govind Khade Vs Sitaram S/O Janardan Kunte, Principal Secretary Higher and Technical Education Dept. and Others

Suvarna Gautam Gawai Vs the Akola Municipal Corporation, Akola, Thr. Municipal Commissioner and Others

Shri. Baban Jairam Randive, Chandrapur Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Ratnadip Nandanvan Vyayamshala Thr. New Nandanvan Thr. Secretary Shankar J Gaidhane Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Urban Development Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Shrikant S/O. Gajanrao Aaglave Vs State of Maha., Thr Commissionerate of Animal Husbandary, Maha. State, Aundh, Pune and Others