Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAN VIJAY SINGH versus UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ran Vijay Singh v. Union Bank Of India And Others - WRIT - A No. 3876 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 6603 (29 November 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Petitioner no. 1 is the son and petitioner no. 2 is the mother. Sri Thakur Prasad Singh, father of petitioner no. 1 and husband of petitioner no. 2, was working as an Arms Guard in the Union Bank of India, Branch Ahiraula, District Azamgarh. He died in harness on 10.5.2001. An application for compassionate appointment was submitted on behalf of the petitioners. Vide letter of communication dated 15.9.2003 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) the petitioners were offered a lump sum financial assistance of Rs. 3,09,000/- in view of the new scheme of the Bank in pursuance of the meeting of the Board of Directors dated 30.5.2003.  Vide another letter of communication to petitioner no. 2 dated 16.10.2003 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) it has been intimated to her that the application moved by her for compassionate appointment of her son in the Bank has not been considered favourably and an amount of Rs. 3,09,000/- has been decided to be paid to the petitioners. The petitioners moved another application/representation to reconsider the decision which has not been decided as yet.

From Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition it appears that a bald statement has been made that the case of the petitioner has been considered in the circumstances. It has further been averred that the Bank had taken a decision to pay a lump sum financial assistance of Rs. 3,09,000/- to the petitioner. These communications dated 15.9.2003 and 16.10.2003 contained in Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition are not the orders but merely communications, hence it is not possible to know whether the Bank had applied its mind for considering the case of the petitioner by giving the aforesaid lump sum assistance to the petitioner in lieu of compassionate appointment.  

The learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file the order as to why the Bank has rejected the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

Dated: 29.11.2005

Rpk/    


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.