Partly allowed

Deepak Sapra v. Punjab National Bank

Delhi HC15 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/810/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for exemption and Writ Petition regarding pension admission were disposed by issuing directions. The bank was directed to treat the petition as a representation and issue a reasoned order within eight weeks without immediate examination of merits.

What did the court decide?

Exemption granted. Directed respondent to treat petition as representation and dispose with speaking order within 8 weeks without examining merits.

Deepak Sapra Vs Punjab National Bank — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~2

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 810/2016

¶4

DEEPAK SAPRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. K.G. Mishra, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

¶8

O R D E R % 15.02.2016

¶9

C.M. Appl. No.3586/2016 (for exemption)

¶10

Exemption as prayed for is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

The application stands disposed off.

¶12

W.P.(C) 810/2016

¶13

This petition seeks directions to the respondent-Punjab National Bank to admit the petitioner as Pension Optee in terms of circular No. 08/10 dated 16^th August, 2010 and to thereafter disburse pension to the petitioner along with arrears. It is also the case of the petitioner that a representation dated 18^th July, 2015, sent to the respondent in this behalf, has failed to illicit any response. He further states that, for the time being, the petitioner would be satisfied if this writ W.P.(C) 810/2016 page 1 of 3

¶14

page 1 of 3

¶15

petition is treated by the respondent/Bank as a representation since it sets down all relevant information and material particulars in respect of his claim, which may be duly considered by the Bank and be disposed off by a reasoned order; whilst reserving his right to take necessary action as per law in case the petitioner still remains dissatisfied.

¶16

Issue notice.

¶17

Mr. Rajesh Gautam, Advocate, accepts notice and states that without prejudice to the case of the Bank, either in fact or in law, specially in view of the fact that he is not filing traverse to the same in these proceedings, the respondent will be willing to consider the aforesaid representation of the petitioner afresh and dispose off the same with the speaking order within eight weeks from today.

¶18

In response, counsel for the petitioner states that he is agreeable to this while reserving all his rights in case his client remains dissatisfied with the outcome for any reason.

¶19

Under the circumstances, and as agreed, the matter is disposed off with a direction to the respondent bank to duly consider the petitioner’s petition as a representation, and dispose off the same with a speaking order within 8 weeks. Of course, in case the petitioner remains dissatisfied, it will be open for him to take recourse to such proceedings as are available in law. It will also be open to the petitioner to file any further precedents on which he relies before the respondent in support of his representation.

¶20

page 2 of 3

¶21

W.P.(C) 810/2016

¶22

The petition stands disposed off.

¶23

It is made clear that the merits of the matter have not been examined and no opinion has been expressed thereon one way or the other.

¶24

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J

¶25

FEBRUARY 15, 2016 AK

¶26

page 3 of 3

¶27

W.P.(C) 810/2016

Deepak Sapra v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Sapra v. Punjab National Bank

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

Mitali Bhattacharya Vs University of Delhi and Anr.

Mangal Mishra and Ar Vs Govt. of NCT Delhi and Ors.

D.T.C. Vs Rajbir Singh

Sudesh Kumari Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. Vs Pooja

Dr. V.K. Bahuguna Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rail Mazdoor Union Vs the Chairman, Railway Board & Ors.

M/S. Emaar Properties Pjsc Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

M/S E&M Specialty Co. Inc. Vs M/S Interdril Asia Ltd.

In the Matter of Sapphire Management Consultants Private Limited Vs ....

In the Matter of Tata Internet Limited Vs ....

Sita Ram Vs Delhi Development Authority and Anr.

Banasthali Vidyapith Vs Union of India & Ors.

University of Delhi Vs Sharda Sehgal and Ors.