Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BANWARI LAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Banwari Lal v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - A No. 5996 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 11583 (17 July 2006)

 

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

Court No.27

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5996  of 2004

Banwari Lal Vs. Union of India and others

Hon. Sanjay Misra, J.

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner  and Sri Dharmendra Vaishya learned counsel for respondent no.6.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.6 Punjab National Bank, Branch Babina, Jhansi. A counter affidavit has also been filed  by Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Babina, Jhansi.

It is the case of the petitioner that he retired from the post of Safai Karmchari under respondent no.4 on 30.6.1991 and that when his retiral benefits have not been paid he filed a Writ Petition No.5069 of 1999 which was disposed by this Court on 8.3.1999 wherein the respondents were directed to decide the representation of the petitioner regarding post retiral benefits.

By means of present writ petition, the following prayer has been made:-

1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to get conducted an enquiry themselves or through an independent agencies to enquire and establish as to who is the culprit who has played fraud and has deprived the petitioner from his post retirement benefits by misrepresentation or by impersonation, in collusion with or without the Bank and direct the respondents to pay the entire post retirement benefits to the petitioner which has not been paid to the petitioner till date.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.6 Punjab National Bank it has been stated that  the petitioner has

-2-

not disclosed the details  nor his account number with the  respondent no.6 and as such any allegation of manipulation or forgery against respondent no.6 is not made out. It has also been stated that  the petitioner should have  produced the record of his account with the respondent Bank.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4 Executive Officer , Cantonment Board, Babina, Jhansi a certificate dated 17.6.1997 issued by Punjab National Bank, Babina Cantt  has been filed as C.A.1 which indicates that a cheque bearing no.589511 dated 17.8.1991 was  issued by Chief  Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Babina, Jhansi in favour of Banwari Lal son of Bugga Ram and the same was credited in to the account no.8853  Banwari Lal on 20.6.1991 and the said amount has also been withdrawn. Another certificate dated 24.6.1997 issued by State Bank of India, Babina Cantt  indicates that two cheques bearing nos.797441 and 797443 both dated 2.11.91 in favour of Banwari Lal were presented before State Bank of India for payment through Punjab National Bank on 6.11.91 and the same were paid on the same date. The statement of account with regard to retiral benefits of the petitioner has also been annexed along with the counter affidavit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner has account no.8853 in the Punjab National Bank, Branch Babina, Jhansi. On  these  facts and the circumstances and on the basis of the  certificates issued by the Punjab National Bank as also State Bank of India to the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Babina, Jhansi the  post retiral benefits of the petitioner have been paid by the respondent concerned. As such the relief claimed by the petitioner  to the effect that respondents be directed to pay the

-3-

entire post retiral benefits appears to be misconceived and can not be granted. So far as the prayer for conduct of an  enquiry into fraud played upon the petitioner is concerned the averment made by the petitioner in paragraph 8 of the writ petition is that he has made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Jhansi.  In view of the aforesaid fact the petitioner may, if so advised, pursue  the complaint.  Since the  post retiral benefits of the petitioners  have already been paid  by respondent no.4  by means of account payee cheques  which have been deposited in the Bank account of the petitioner no further relief can be granted.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order is passes as to costs.

17.7.06

Gc.


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.