Smt. Pratima Singh v. The Managing Director, Bank Of Baroda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18282 of 2019 ====================================================== Smt. Pratima Singh, Wife of Late Ritesh Kumar Singh, resident of villageKaringa, Post- Maithwaliya, P.S.- Muffasil, Chapra, District- Chapra. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Baroda Corporate Centre, C-26, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, P.O. and P.S.- Bandra, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051.
2.
Zonal Manager, Bank of Baroda, P.O.- G.P.O, P.S.- Shrikrishnapuri, Patna. 3.
Deputy Zonal Manager, Bank of Baroda, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Srikrishnapuri, Patna.
4.
Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, P.O. Panasi, Via Islampur, P.S. Kishanganj, Ratanpur, District- Kishanganj.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Uday Bhan Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Sanjeev Shankar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-09-2019 The petitioner is widow of an employee of Bank of Baroda who died in harness on 8.8.2008. There is a scheme of the Bank for providing financial assistance to the families of the deceased employees of the Bank if an employee dies in harness. The petitioner had made an application for such financial assistance on 20.9.2019, which was rejected and communicated to her through letter No.3811 dated 11.12.2009, issued by the Deputy Zonal Manager of the Bank of Baroda, on the ground that her monthly income was more than 60 per cent of the last drawn salary of the deceased employee. The said communication made on
Patna High Court CWJC No.18282 of 2019 dt.19-09-2019 2/2 11.12.2009, is being assailed in the present writ application filed on 3.9.2019. The only plea, which has been taken in the writ application, for delay of nearly 10 years in filing the application is that the petitioner was totally perturbed because of sudden death of her husband and got busy in looking after the welfare of her children.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that there is no basis disclosed in the communication dated 11.12.2009 that the income of the petitioner was above 60 per cent of the monthly salary of the deceased employee.
3. Be that as it may, in my opinion, delay of 10 years in approaching this Court has no acceptable justification in the pleadings.
4. I do not find it proper to entertain this application filed ten years after the cause of action arose.
5. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) S.Ali/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 21/09/2019 Transmission Date N.A.