Disposed¶29

Girish Chandra Deka v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Sept 2025WP(C)/4154/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court, WP(C)/4154/2025, decided 03.09.2025 by Manish Choudhury, J. — retired SBI Messenger/Head Messenger; pension and retirement benefit dues; representations dated 08.04.2010 and 26.06.2025; writ petition disposed of with direction to State Bank of India to process, consider and decide retirement dues within six weeks and communicate decision forthwith; no costs; entitlement left to be decided by SBI.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent SBI authorities to process, consider and decide the petitioner's retirement dues claim in an expeditious manner within an outer limit of six weeks, and to communicate the decision so taken to the petitioner forthwith; no order as to costs. ¶29

Girish Chandra Deka Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to settlement and disbursement of pension and other retirement benefits by the respondent SBI authorities in accordance with the applicable rules and procedure. +1 more

¶25

Ratio / Principle

On the consensus of learned counsel for the parties, and since the matter of the petitioner's retirement dues is presently under consideration of the respondent SBI authorities, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent SBI authorities to process, consider and decide the matter of the petitioner's retirement dues in an expeditious manner within an outer limit of six weeks.

¶28

Key takeaways

The decision taken on the petitioner's retirement dues is to be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.ratio¶28
The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Manish Choudhury, J.), 03.09.2025, WP(C)/4154/2025: Writ petition by a former State Bank of India Messenger (joined 01.11.1989; served till March 2009 and promoted Head Messenger; regular salary drawn 01.05.1989 to 31.03.2009; 205 days' prior casual service) who, after suffering mental illness in 2009 and expressing inability to resume service, sought settlement of pension and retirement benefits by letters dated 08.04.2010 and 26.06.2025, which went unanswered. SBI stated the claim was under consideration of the competent authority and would take about six weeks. With the consensus of learned counsel, the Court, instead of keeping the petition pending, disposed of the writ petition directing the SBI authorities to process, consider and decide the retirement dues in an expeditious manner within an outer limit of six weeks and to communicate the decision to the petitioner forthwith. No costs. No adjudication on entitlement.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010159552025

2025:GAU-AS:11975

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4154/2025

¶6

GIRISH CHANDRA DEKA

¶7

S/O LATE SARAT DEKA, R/O VILL- DHAMDHAMA (BARNORIKONA), P.O.BARBARI, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781351

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001

¶11

2:THE STATE BAANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CORPORATE CENTRE STATE BANK OF INDIA MADAME CAMA ROAD NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI-40021 AND HAVING ITS LOCAL HEAD OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI-781005

¶12

3:THE ZONAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA GUWAHATI ZONE ABC G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH P.O- DISPUR GUWAHATI-781005

¶13

4:THE GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA REGION-I

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH P.O.- DISPUR GUWAHATI-78100

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B PURKAYASTHA, MR. J P BARUAH

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR P GOGOI(R-2,3,4),MR. A K SAHEWALLA (R2,3,4),MR. W SHARMA(R-2,3,4),MRS. R DEVI(C.G.C)(R-2,3,4),SC, SBI

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 03.09.2025

¶21

Heard Mr. B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. A.K. Sahewalla, learned Standing Counsel, State Bank of India for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4.

¶22

The petitioner has stated that he joined the respondent State Bank of India [SBI] as a Messenger on 01.11.1989 and he continued to render service in that capacity till March, 2009. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Head Messenger. The petitioner has stated that prior to his regular appointment, he served in the respondent SBI on casual basis for 205 days.

¶23

2.1. The respondent SBI authorities had granted him regular salary only from 01.05.1989 till 31.03.2009. According to the petitioner, he served in the respondent SBI for a period of nineteen years and eleven months. The petitioner has stated that as he had suffered from mental illness during 2009, he could not resume service immediately thereafter. The petitioner approached the respondent SBI authorities vide a Letter dated 08.04.2010 seeking settlement of his retirement benefits by intimating about his medical condition and expressing his inability to resume service. As the said application was not given due attention, the petitioner sought settlement of his retirement dues after a long gap on 26.06.2025.

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

2.2. As no response has been received from the respondent SBI authorities, the petitioner is before this Court by the instant writ petition seeking inter alia a direction to the respondent SBI authorities to settle and disburse the pension and other retirement benefits entitled to him as per the rules and procedure of the respondent SBI.

¶26

Mr. Sahewalla, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent SBI Authorities has submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner seeking settlement of his retirement dues is being considered by the competent authority presently and it is after due consideration, a decision can be taken whether the petitioner is entitled to receive any retirement benefit or not. He has further submitted that the entire process would take about 6 [six] weeks time and therefore, this writ petition, instead of being adjudicated at this stage, can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent SBI authorities to process and finalize the matter of retirement dues of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶27

Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed to the submissions made by Mr. Sahewalla, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent SBI authorities.

¶28

In view of the broad consensus arrived in the afore-stated manner by the learned counsel for the parties, and considering the fact that the matter of retirement dues to the petitioner is presently under consideration of the respondent SBI Authorities, this Court is of the considered view that instead of keeping this writ petition pending, the writ petition can be disposed of, at this stage, with a direction to the respondent SBI authorities to process, consider and decide the matter of retirement dues of the petitioner in an expeditious manner but within an outer limit of 6 [six] weeks from today. The decision so taken on the matter of retirement dues of the petitioner is thereafter, to be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶29

With the observation made and direction given above, the writ petition is disposed of. No Cost.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Girish Chandra Deka v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Chandra Deka v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Sarma Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Smt. Hiron Bala Roy Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Krishna Sharma Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Bhabita Bordoloi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Miss Gaitry Bhuyan Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Jalal Uddin Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.