Rajkumar Verma v. Zonal Manager, Dena Bank,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6421 of 2019 Rajkumar Verma S/o Gurusharan Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bhusuda, Post Office Sarora ( Gosadan ) Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Zonal Manager, Dena Bank, 2nd Floor L I C Investment Building, Behind Jeevan Bima Marg, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Deputy General Manager, Dena Bank, Zonal Office, 2nd Floor L I C Investment Building, Behind L I C Divisional Office, Pandri, Jeevan Bima Marg, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Branch Manager, Dena Bank, Gariyaband Branch, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For Respondent/s :

Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 26/08/2019

1. The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for interest as also for compensation for the delayed release of the retiral dues.

2. This Court on going through the pleadings and documents enclosed along with the writ petition does not find any strong case for grant of said relief. The petitioner initially filed the writ petition WPS 2504/2019 claiming for retiral dues. Respondents were noticed and they came up with a stand that since the petitioner have not completed the requisite formalities in as much as the PRAN registration number was not submitted by the petitioner and therefore the retiral dues could not be released and subject to the

petitioner fulfilling the same, the dues would be immediately cleared.

3. The counsel for the petitioner today during the course of the hearing admits that petitioner in fact has got the entire dues which was payable to him. However, he has not been given interest part. Since this Court had not granted or made any observation for grant of interest in the previous writ petition neither had the petitioner prayed for the interest in the said writ petition. The petitioner now by this subsequent writ petition cannot claim for interest and compensation.

4. Another reason why petitioner is not entitled for the the said relief is that the delay for releasing the retiral dues cannot be attributed upon the respondents. The petitioner had to complete certain formalities enabling the respondents for releasing the retiral dues. It is only after the direction of this Court in WPS 2504/2019 which led the petitioner to approach the respondents and complete the formalities and thereafter the entire payment has been promptly made. There does not seem to be any deliberate delay on the part of the respondents in releasing the retiral dues.

5. Under the circumstances, the petitioner would not be entitled for the any relief. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is accordingly rejected.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit