Disposed

Kshama Rani v. State Bank of India through Its Managing Director

Jharkhand HC25 Jan 2024WPC/704/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a writ petition seeking relief for compassionate appointment and payment of dues to the petitioner's husband who died in harness. The court did not examine merits and directed the Regional Manager to fresh representation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

liberty to prefer fresh representation before Respondent No.4 and decide within eight weeks after hearing.

Kshama Rani Vs State Bank of India through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 704 of 2023

¶3

Kshama Rani ….. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State Bank of India, through its Managing Director, Mumbai, (Maharashtra)

¶6

The General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna (Bihar) 3. The Assistant General Manager (H.R), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna (Bihar)

¶7

The Regional Manager (R.B.O), State Bank of India, Pakur

¶8

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ram Nagar Branch, Sahibganj

¶9

….. Respondents

¶10

----- CORAM

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioner: Mr. Harsh Chandra For the S.B.I: Mr. Rajesh Kumar

¶14

¶15

05/25.01.2024 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment in the State Bank of India as well as to make payment of all admissible dues of her husband, who died in harness on 14.11.2017.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s husbandLate Ranjit Kuamr was appointed on the post of Junior Associate (CS & S)/Junior Agricultural Associate on 23.03.2017 in the State Bank of India. Unfortunately, he died in harness on 14.11.2017 as would be evident from the copy of the death certificate (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). After death of her husband, the petitioner made several representations ventilating her grievance before different authorities of the respondent-Bank, however, the same remained un-responded, which has compelled her to prefer the present writ petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner has one minor daughter and she is the sole bread earner in her family. In absence of any source of income, she is at the verge of starvation.

¶17

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, submits that since no counter affidavit has been filed in this case, if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation ventilating her aforesaid grievance before the respondent

¶18

No.4, an appropriate decision will be taken in accordance with law within a time frame.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the prayer made in the present writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation ventilating her grievance before the respondent No.4. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent No.4, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/her representative, shall take an appropriate informed decision in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of filing of the said representation.

¶20

The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction.

¶21

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶22

Satish/-

Kshama Rani v. State Bank of India through Its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kshama Rani v. State Bank of India through Its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bablu Kumbhakar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiveshwar Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Principal Secretary Deptt of Higher Technical Education and Skill

Mukul Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Janeshwar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kandla Projects Private Limited through Its Director Sanjay Goyal Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Mr P M Prasad

Nimchandra Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand