H N Wadhwa v. Punjab National Bank

$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2154/2016 H N WADHWA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Ashok Bhalla, Advocate.

versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rajesh Gautam, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

O R D E R

% 15.03.2016 C.M. Appl. No.9215/2016 Exemption as prayed for is allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed off.

W.P.(C) No.2154/2016 This petition seeks directions to the respondent / Punjab National Bank to decide his two representations sent on 14.12.2015 requesting them to calculate his subsistence allowance by taking into consideration the revision of pay-scales, along with interest; and to supply him details of calculation of tax and deduction of TDS. He further states that, for the time being, the petitioner would be satisfied if this writ petition is treated by the respondent/Bank as a representation since it sets down all relevant information and material particulars in respect of his claim, which may be duly considered by the Bank and be disposed off by a reasoned order; whilst reserving his right to take necessary action as per law in case the petitioner still remains dissatisfied.

Issue notice.

Mr. Rajesh Gautam, Advocate, accepts notice and states that without prejudice to the case of the Bank, either in fact or in law, specially in view of the fact that he is not filing any traverse to these proceedings, the respondent will be willing to consider the aforesaid representations of the petitioner afresh, and dispose off the same with a speaking order within eight weeks from today.

In response, counsel for the petitioner states that he is agreeable to this while reserving all his rights in case his client remains dissatisfied with the outcome for any reason.

Under the circumstances, and as agreed, the matter is disposed off with a direction to the respondent bank to duly consider the petitioner's petition as a representation, and dispose off the same with a speaking order within 8 weeks from today. Of course, in case the petitioner remains dissatisfied, it will be open for him to take recourse to such proceedings as are available in law. It will also be open to the petitioner to file any further precedents on which he relies before the respondent in support of his representation.

It is made clear that the merits of the matter have not been examined and no opinion has been expressed thereon one way or the other. The petition stands disposed off.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J MARCH 15, 2016 dr