Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. ADARSH GUPTA versus BRANCH MANAGER AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Adarsh Gupta v. Branch Manager And Others - WRIT - A No. 5194 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 12707 (1 August 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

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the wife of Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta who had been working in the State Bank of India, Ranikhet Branch for a direction upon the respondents to appoint the son Sri Arun Kumar Gupta on compassionate ground and to pay family pension to the petitioner.

It has been stated in the petition that the husband of the petitioner absconded since 18th September, 1994. He could not be traced out and, therefore, information was sent to the police station for investigation. However, later it was found out that the husband of the petitioner was alive and had become a ''Sanyasi'.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it has been stated that since the husband of the petitioner was missing for more than 1 year, the terminal benefits were paid to the petitioner in 1997 and the details are as follows:-

"(a) Aggregate terminal benefit of Rs. 5.42 lacs have been duly paid to the petitioner (inclusive of gratuity amount paid).

(b) The over draft of Rs. 1 lac against NSCs is being repaid on maturity of the NSCs, the family has no other liabilities.

(c) Gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,58,600/- has also been paid on 18th October, 1997."

It has also been stated that as the husband of the petitioner is still alive, the family pension cannot be paid.

At the time of hearing of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the relief of giving compassionate appointment obviously because the husband of the petitioner is still alive. However, he has pressed the second relief for grant of family pension. This relief cannot be granted to the petitioner since the husband of the petitioner is still alive.

There is, therefore, no merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.    

Date: 1.8.2006

NSC-5194


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.