Dismissed

The Bank of Baroda v. Smt. Bidami Devi Wife of Late Shri Surajmal Gurjar

Rajasthan HC26 May 2023SAW/75/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

D.B. Special Appeal dismissed the Bank of Baroda's appeal against the order granting monthly interest on terminal benefits paid to the deceased employee's family in absence of proof of utilization, upholding the Single Judge's presumption as not perverse.

What did the court decide?

The Court dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the grant of interest on the unaccounted terminal benefits.

The Bank of Baroda Vs Smt. Bidami Devi… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/012171]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 75/2023

¶4

The Bank Of Baroda, Through General Manager, (Hr And Marketing), Human Resource Management Deptt. Baroda Corporate Centre, Mumbai.

¶5

The Regional Manager, Bank Of Baroda, Regional Office (Jaipur Region), Baroda Bhawan, Plot No. 13, Airport Plaza, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶6

The Deputy General Manager, Bank Of Baroda, Regional Office (Jaipur Region), Baroda Bhawan, Plot No. 13, Airport Plaza, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶7

The Assistant General Manager, Bank Of Baroda, Regional Office (Jaipur Region) Baroda Bhawan, Plot No. 13, Airport Plaza, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Smt. Bidami Devi Wife Of Late Shri Surajmal Gurjar, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Chak Manoharpur, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Prashant Chaturvedi with Mr. Shakti Mathur
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Bipin Gupta with
	Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal

¶13

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

26/05/2023

Heard on admission.

Learned counsel for the appellants-Bank would submit that once terminal benefits have been paid to the family members of the deceased employee, in the absence of any material to the contrary, the bank has been consistently taking into consideration

[2023/RJJP/012171]

[SAW-75/2023]

(2 of 2)

that if the amount would have been invested, it would have earned certain investment. On such consistent practice, the interest component is being calculated throughout. He would submit that it was for the respondent to come before the Court and clearly states as to how the amount received as terminal benefit was utilized by them. If that burden is not discharged by the respondent, a presumption will have to be drawn that the terminal benefits paid to the deceased family members would have earned interest per month at the prevalent rates.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellants could not bring to the notice of this Court any specific provision having the force to law for drawing such kind of presumption. The view taken by the learned Single Judge that in the absence of proof of any investment being made by the dependents of the deceased employee, such presumption that money if invested would have earned Rs.6,662/- per month as interest, in our opinion, does not suffer from any patent illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference in this appeal.

¶24

Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶26

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

¶27

RAJAT/6

The Bank of Baroda v. Smt. Bidami Devi Wife of Late Shri Surajmal Gurjar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Bank of Baroda v. Smt. Bidami Devi Wife of Late Shri Surajmal Gurjar

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

Smt. Champa Devi W/O Late Ex. Sep Anji Singh No. 2643511 Vs Union of India

Jagdish Kumar S/O Bhanwar Lal Vs Assistant Commissioner State Commercial Tax Department

Deepak Bhargav Son of Late Shri G.L. Bhargav Vs State of Rajasthan

Prakash Chand Kumbhar S/O Shriya Ram Vs Union of India

Rohitashw Kumar Dhankar S/O Rameshwar Lal Dhankar Vs State of Rajasthan

Purushottam Lal S/O Shri Charan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan