Dismissed

Rishi Raj v. State Bank of India & Ors.

Delhi HC22 Jan 2026W.P.(C)/12671/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought release of a deceased State Bank of India employee's service benefits and pension. The Bank disclosed all dues, including provident fund, gratuity and family pension arrears, were already paid to the petitioner's mother during her lifetime. With no rejoinder and no appearance by the petitioner, the court found no further directions necessary and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rishi Raj Vs State Bank of India & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~35

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 12671/2021

¶4

RISHI RAJ .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: versus

¶6

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Kapur, SC with Mr. Akshit Kapur & Ms. Riya Sood, Advocates for R-1 & R-2. Mr. T. P. Singh, Sr. Central Govt. Counsel for R-3.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 22.01.2026

¶10

The Petitioner seeks a direction to the State Bank of India to release and disburse the service benefits, funds, and pension arising out of the service rendered by his father, Late Mr. J. S. Dahiya with the Respondent Bank.

¶11

The Petitioner contends that after the demise of his father, these amounts were payable to his mother during her lifetime, who has since passed away. It is further noted that the Petitioner’s mother, i.e., the wife of Late Mr. J. S. Dahiya, had earlier filed a writ petition [W.P.(C) 7451/2015] seeking similar directions in respect of the retiral benefits of her husband. The said petition, however, came to be dismissed for default on account of non-prosecution.

¶12

Be that as it may, this Court had called upon the Respondent Bank to

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/01/2026 at 12:37:02

¶15

file its counter affidavit, the relevant portion of which is reproduced:

¶16

‘6. It is pertinent to mention that all the service benefits payable to Late Shri J.S. Dahiya has been paid by the answering respondent bank and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner in the present petition has been fulfilled, therefore, the present petition has become infructuous and deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner's mother has already received the Provident Fund (Employee Contribution) of Late Shri J.S. Dahiya amounting to Rs. 1,28,707/- (One Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand seven hundred and seven only) vide cheque No. 667192 dated 07.04.2005 and balance amount of Provident Fund was paid on 30.04.2005 in A/c No. 53002234058. The copy of acknowledgement slip along with register entry is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-1.

¶17

7. That the Petitioner's mother has also received the Gratuity from the Respondent Bank amounting to Rs. 1,10,298/- (One Lakh Ten Thousand Two Hundred and Nighty Eight Only) vide cheque No. 695560 dated 01.05.2005. That the petitioner's mother had acknowledged the receipt by pressing thumb impression on the receipt vide Acknowledgment Receipt No. 10/05-06 and amount has been credited to the A/c No. 63000030694. The copy of the acknowledgement receipt along with account statement is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-2

¶18

8. That the balance of Provident Fund (Employer's Contribution) amounting to Rs. 1,28,707/- was transferred to Pension Fund.

¶19

9. That Family Pension arrears amounting to Rs. 3,17,229.91/- has been credited to the A/c bearing no. 63000030694 on 13.12.2022 of the Petitioner’s mother Late Smt. Prem Lata.’

¶20

The Respondent Bank has thus made a complete disclosure of the payments effected in favour of the Petitioner’s mother. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner to controvert these assertions. It is also noted that there has been no appearance on behalf of the Petitioner since 6^th February, 2025. The said non-appearance was also recorded on 3^rd March, 2025 and 27^th August, 2025.

¶21

In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it is evident that the retiral dues have already been paid and no further directions are required to be issued in this petition.

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/01/2026 at 12:37:02

¶24

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶25

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶26

JANUARY 22, 2026/ hc

¶27

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/01/2026 at 12:37:02

Rishi Raj v. State Bank of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rishi Raj v. State Bank of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.D. Ramnath Company Family Trust Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate & Ors.

Mohammad Hamza Akhtar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Dalip Kumar Chahar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Thakur Caterers Vs Union of India & Ors.

Paul Nanda & Ors. Vs UOI & Anr.

Bank of Baroda & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Defence & Ors. Vs Ex Hfo Manoj Kumar Singh No. 656613-N

Rambabu Yadav Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Rajwant Kaur Vs Punjabi Academy & Ors.

Mohinder Kaur Vs Punjabi Academy & Ors.

Bharti Shami Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vineeta Jennifer Isaacs Vs St. Anthony Girls Sr. Secondary School through Its Principal (Authorised Signatory) & Ors.

Dr. Hargovind Soni & Ors. Vs Delhi Technological University

Mr Adarsh Pal Singh Randhawa Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.