High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCOCP/2886/2014dismissed

Balbir Singh v. Pragati Jagga

2017-01-30Mr. Justice S.P. Bangarh2 pages

Manoj Kumar 2017.02.01 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP No.2886 of 2014 #1#

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.2886 of 2014 Date of Order: 30.1.2017 Balbir Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Pragati Jagga, District Manager ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:

Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for the respondent. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) The petitioner retired from the rank of Assistant Manager from his employer/Central Cooperative Bank, Patiala on 31.1.2011.

It transpires that the petitioner while working as Branch Manager, Zirakpur, during the period prior to 01.10.2006, when the operation of said area was with Patiala Central Cooperative Bank, had advanced certain loans, which were subsequently declared as Non Performing Assets (NPA). The jurisdiction of the Branch of Zirakpur on transfer w.e.f 01.10.2006 was vested with the SAS Nagar, Central Cooperative Bank. Due to 104 arbitration references pending against the petitioner, his property is alleged to have been attached as also his retiral benefits by Patiala Central Cooperative Bank at the instance of SAS Nagar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. He, accordingly, filed writ bearing CWP No.8940 of 2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 09.5.2014 (P.5) directing the SAS Nagar Central Cooperative Bank, to pass a

COCP No.2886 of 2014 #2# speaking order regarding release of his retiral benefits. At the time of hearing today, learned counsel for the respondent submits that vide speaking order dated 04.8.2016, the petitioner-Balbir Singh has been intimated that the Board of Directors of the SAS Nagar Central Cooperative Bank have written to the Central Cooperative Bank, Patiala for release of his retiral benefits after the decision of appeals in the Arbitration References. He, thus submits that the directions passed by this Court on 09.5.2014 (P.5) stands complied with. The reasons for delay are shown to be bonafide.

The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid development, no further action is warranted and, therefore, present petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous and the rule is discharged. January 30, 2017 (JASWANT SINGH) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No