Jiya Lal Prasad Dinkar v. The Managing Director And Chief Executive Officer, United Commercial Bank

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.899 of 2022 ====================================================== Jiya Lal Prasad Dinkar son of Late Sri Anchit Sah resident of RITA BIHAR, B- 76, Budha Colony, P.S. Budha Colony, At and District- Patna- 1 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, United Commercial Bank Head Office, 10 B.T.M. Sarani Road, Post- G.P.O. Kolkata, P.S. Lal Bazar, At and District- Kolkata (W.B.) PIN CODE- 700001. 2.

The General Manager, United Commercial Bank, Head Office, 10 B.T.M. Sarani Road, Post- G.P.O. Kolkata, P.S. Lal Bazar, At and District- Kolkata (W.B.) PIN CODE- 700001.

3.

The Deputy General Manager, United Commercial Bank, Head Office, 10 B.T.M. Sarani Road, Post- G.P.O. Kolkata, P.S. Lal Bazar, At and DistrictKolkata (W.B.) PIN CODE- 700001. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anjani Kumar Sinha No.1 For the UCO Bank :

Mrs. Sheela Sharma, Advocate Mr. Shivendra Kumar Roy, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER 16-07-2024 In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ/order in the nature of certiorari directing the respondent Authority to calculate his pension giving the benefit of Additional Notional Service under Rule 26 of the UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995.

2. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in the year 2021, he submitted a representation before the respondent Authority being Annexure-7 of the writ petition, for redressal of his grievance but till date the said representation has not been dispose of.

Patna High Court CWJC No.899 of 2022(3) dt.16-07-2024 2/2

3. It is contended on behalf of the respondents-Bank that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of Rule 26 on certain grounds.

4. Since, a representation is still pending before the respondent Authority filed by the petitioner for redressal of his grievance, I am not interested to go into the merit of the case. However, the respondents are duty bound to dispose of the representation (Annexure-7) filed by the petitioner within a specific period of time. Therefore, the instant writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, in respect of the representation submitted by the petitioner in the year 2021, within 90 days from the date of this order. The respondent Authority is directed to give adequate opportunity to the petitioner for hearing before disposal of his representation.

5. With the above direction, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J) mdrashid/- U