Smt Saraswati Devi Vs State Bank of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt Saraswati Devi Vs State Bank of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent/State Bank of India to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 30.11.2024 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two weeks from receipt of the order; liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again if aggrieved by the outcome; Registry directed to send a copy of the order to the Regional Manager, SBI, Parliament Street, New Delhi through Special Messenger; dasti copy to petitioner's counsel and copy to learned Standing Counsel for SBI.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to payment by SBI under the policy/MOU for U.P. Police personnel — a sum of Rs.40 lacs on the accidental death of her husband while on duty — the petitioner having sought Rs.60 lacs with interest. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent/State Bank of India to dispose of the petitioner's representation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Key takeaways

In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the outcome of her representation, she would be at liberty to approach this Court again.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Jain, J., oral judgment) disposed of W.P.(C) 2934/2025 filed by the widow of a U.P. Police Constable who died in a hit-and-run accident while on duty at PS Mandawar, District Bijnor (FIR under Section 279/304A/427 IPC). Petitioner sought Rs.60 lacs with interest, claiming that under a policy and consequent MOU between U.P. Police and SBI, Rs.40 lacs is payable on such accidental death; her representation dated 30.11.2024 to the Regional Manager (Parliament Street, New Delhi) and Branch Manager (Mandawar Branch, Bijnor), also forwarded to SBI Headquarter, remained undecided. At counsel's request, the Court did not adjudicate entitlement but disposed of the petition directing SBI to decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within two weeks of receipt of the order, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again if aggrieved; a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Regional Manager through Special Messenger and dasti copy to counsel.

$~33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 7^th March, 2025

- W.P.(C) 2934/2025 & CM APPL. 13908-13909/2025

SMT SARASWATI DEVI .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. N. K. Gupta, Advocate. versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, Standing Counsel for SBI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

Petitioner seeks direction to respondents inter alia to pay her a sum of Rs.60 lacs with interest.

The husband of petitioner was a police official and was lastly posted on duty at PS Mandawar, District Bijnor, U.P., as Constable. While being on duty, he met with an accident in which he, eventually, lost his life. FIR for commission of offences under Section 279/304A/427 IPC was also registered.

It is stated to be a hit and run case.

The grievance of petitioner is that U.P. Police personnel have been provided with facility by State Bank of India (SBI) and as per such policy and consequent MOU, in case of any such accident, resulting into death, the police official is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.40 lacs from SBI. It is submitted that despite there being a representation to the abovesaid effect, the amount to which petitioner is, lawfully, entitled

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 2934/2025 1

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 0.03.2025 13:07:19

to, has not been paid.

Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to representation dated 30.11.2024, addressed to Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi as well as to the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Mandawar Branch, Bijnor, U.P.

It is reiterated that there is no decision on the abovesaid representation, as yet. He also submits that a copy of the abovesaid representation was even forwarded to the Headquarter of State Bank of India, but to no avail.

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent appears on advance notice and accepts notice.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that, at the moment, petitioner would feel satisfied if there is a specific direction to respondent/Bank to decide the abovesaid representation in a time-bound manner. He, however, submits that, in case, petitioner is aggrieved by the outcome of her such representation, she be also given liberty to approach this Court again.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent/State Bank of India to dispose of the abovesaid representation as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the present order. 10. Needless to say, in case, petitioner is aggrieved by the outcome of her such representation, she would be at liberty to approach this Court again.

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Regional

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 2934/2025 2

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 0.03.2025 13:07:19

Manager, State Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi through Special Messenger.

A copy of this order be also given dasti to learned counsel for petitioner and be also provided to learned Standing Counsel for State Bank of India to ensure that there is no unwarranted delay in disposal of the representation of petitioner.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

MARCH 7, 2025 st/ ht

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 2934/2025 3

Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Da te:1 0.03.2025 13:07:19