Firoz Ahmad S/O Shri Abdus Salam v. State Bank of India

Rajasthan HC12 Jan 2026CW/87/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur writ petition by retired SBI employee (in person); non-grant of leave encashment and provident fund after ~24 years' service; representations 16.09.2024–13.03.2025 pending; RTI disclosure of ~1004-day delay after cessation of service on 18.12.2017; adjudication assigned to Chief General Manager (respondent No.2); speaking order directed latest by 27.02.2026; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 (Chief General Manager) to consider the petitioner's representations, or any other representation filed, within 15 days of the order and within 30 days of filing, latest by 27.02.2026, strictly in accordance with law, by way of a speaking order; pending applications stand disposed. ¶¶24

Firoz Ahmad S/O Shri Abdus Salam Vs State Bank of India — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of leave encashment and provident fund benefits, his representations filed between 16.09.2024 and 13.03.2025 having remained unaddressed after cessation of service on 18.12.2017. +1 more

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

The appropriate authority for adjudication of the petitioner's representation is respondent No.2 (Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Jaipur).

¶¶22

Key takeaways

The Court directed respondent No.2 to consider the representations filed by the petitioner (or any other representation filed) within 15 days from the date of the order and within 30 days of filing of such representation, i.e. latest by 27.02.2026, strictly in accordance with law, by way of a speaking order.ratio¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur — S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 87/2026 — Firoz Ahmad (in person) v. State Bank of India and others — judgment dated 12/01/2026 — Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sameer Jain. The petitioner, who joined State Bank of India in 1993 and served approximately 24 years, contended that benefits of leave encashment and provident fund were not granted following cessation of service on 18.12.2017. He filed multiple representations from 16.09.2024 to 13.03.2025; in reply to an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Bank admitted that the first internal communication for processing retiral benefits was issued after passage of approximately 1004 days from cessation of service. Considering the submissions, the Court held that the appropriate authority for adjudication of the representation is respondent No.2, the Chief General Manager, and directed him to consider the representations (or any other representation filed) within 15 days of the order and within 30 days of filing, i.e. latest by 27.02.2026, strictly in accordance with law, by way of a speaking order. The petition was disposed of; pending applications likewise stand disposed.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:1076]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 87/2026

¶4

Firoz Ahmad S/o Shri Abdus Salam, Aged About 55 Years, B- 294, Paramount Golfofreste, Zeta 1, Greater Noida, Po Container Depot, Dist Gautam Buddha Nagar- 201311. (U.p)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Bank Of India, Through Its Chairman, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021.

¶8

Chief General Manager, State Bank Of India, Local Head Office, C Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur -302005

¶9

Assistant General Manager, State Bank Of India, Special Branch, High Court Premises, Jodhpur - 342006.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Inperson	through VC
For Respondent(s)	:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶13

Judgment

¶14

12/01/2026

¶15

Petitioner, appeared in-person, through V.C. has contended that petitioner has joined the services of the State Bank of India in 1993 and served as an employee with the respondent-bank for approximately 24 years. It is contended that benefits of the leave encashment and provident fund amount have not been granted to the petitioner.

¶16

Accordingly, the petitioner has filed multiple representations starting from 16.09.2024 to 13.03.2025.

¶17

It is further contended that in reply to the application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, respondent-Bank has

(2 of 2)

[2026:RJ-JP:1076]

[CW-87/2026]

admitted that the first internal communication for processing retiral benefits came to be issued after passage of approximately 1004 days from the cessation of service on 18.12.2017.

¶22

Considering the facts of the case and as per the submissions put forth by the petitioner, the appropriate authority for adjudication of the representation is respondent No.2.

¶23

Accordingly, this Court directs the Chief General Manager (Respondent No.2) to consider the representations filed by the petitioner or any other representation filed, within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of this order, within a period of 30 days of filing of such representation i.e. latest by 27.02.2026, strictly in accordance with law, by way of a speaking order.

¶24

In light of the above, the present petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed.

¶25

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶26

DEEPAK /22

Firoz Ahmad S/O Shri Abdus Salam v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz Ahmad S/O Shri Abdus Salam v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samiksha Sharma D/O Shri Ramakant Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vimlesh Sharma D/O Shri Shiv Ram Sharma W/O Shri Brijan Lal Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Deenu S/O Chand Khan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Sharma, S/O Sh. Raja Babu Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Avdhesh Kumar Choudhary S/O Shri Virendra Kumar Choudhary Vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Rahul S/O Shivprakash Vs the State of Rajasthan