Disposed

G.Ganesan v. State Bank Of India

Madras HC12 Apr 2022WP/7654/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.03.2022 concerning recovery from terminal benefits and pass orders within two weeks. The writ petition was disposed of without an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation of 07.03.2022 and pass orders within two weeks.

G.Ganesan Vs State Bank Of India — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P. No.7654 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.7657 of 2022

¶6

G. Ganesan ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State Bank of India Represented by its Deputy General Manager (B&O), Chennai South, 5th Floor, No. 86, RajajiSalai, Chennai - 600 001.

¶9

Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Anna Salai Branch, State Bank Buildings, No. 157, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.03.2022 on its merits and in accordance with law and pass orders.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. Balan Haridas For Respondents : Mr. Anand Gopalan M/s. T.S. Goplan & Co

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.03.2022 on its merits and in accordance with law.

¶14

According to the petitioner, he has made a representation dated 07.03.2022 to the first respondent objecting to recover amount from his terminal benefits by the respondents. The said representation is still pending and no orders have been passed. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this court.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that the said representation of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.

¶16

Considering the said fact and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court is inclined to direct the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 07.03.2022 and pass orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

mrn

¶23

¶24

The Deputy General Manager (B&O), State Bank of India Chennai South, 5th Floor, No. 86, RajajiSalai,

¶25

Chennai - 600 001.

¶26

The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Anna Salai Branch, State Bank Buildings, No. 157, Anna Salai,

¶27

Chennai - 600 002.

¶28

+1 cc to Mr.T.S.Gopalan & Co, Advocate Sr.NO. 25189

¶29

+1 cc to Mr.Balanharidas, Advocate Sr.NO. 26054

¶30

W.P. No.7654 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.7657 of 2022

¶31

MG(CO) A.SK(18/04/2022)

G.Ganesan v. State Bank Of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Ganesan v. State Bank Of India

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

T.Abimannan Vs The Director of Backward classes and minorities welfare officer

R.Juliet Vs the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

C.Gandhimathi Vs Director of School Education

B.Arun Vs The Director of Industrial

N.Elankavi Vs S.Rajamani

Ranipet Roca Labour Union Vs The Management of