Ramdhani Sahani v. The General Manager Central Bank Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19873 of 2015 =========================================================== Ramdhani Sahani son of Late Durga Sahani, resident of Village & P.O.- Haripur Barhata, P.S.- Sariranjan, District- Samastipur, (retired employee from Central Bank of India, Sarairanjan Branch, Samastipur). .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The General Manager Central Bank of India, Nariman Point, Mumbai

2. The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

3. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Darbhanga, Bihar.

4. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sarairanjan, Samastipur, Bihar.

5. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Serpentine Road, Patna

6. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dalsingsarai Branch, Samastipur.

.... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sachchidanand Choubey, Mr. Lovekush Kumar, Advocates For the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the L.I.C. : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Mr. Sudhanshu Trivedi, Advocates =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-05-2016 Heard parties.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Central Bank of India, Sarairanjan, Samastipur. Details have been given as Annexure-A stating that all the post retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner which also shows that loan account has also been adjusted. A categorical statement has been made along with document appended that LIC Policy Bond No. 531048295 has already been credited in the account of the petitioner on 24.10.2014

Patna High Court CWJC No.19873 of 2015 dt.20-05-2016 2/2 and so far the outstanding loan is concerned, it has also been detailed in paragraph nos.-5 and 6 regarding its liquidation. That being the situation, in my view, this writ application has lost its efficacy and stands disposed of. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the calculation which has been appended in the counter affidavit, he would be at liberty to approach the authority concerned by filing his representation.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) Ravi/- U