Vinod Khanna vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 434 Del

JUDGMENT

Rekha Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner had taken voluntary retirement from the respondent bank on 15th January, 2001. The present writ petition was filed on 30th January, 2006 after five years of his retirement with the following two prayers:

A) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to pay one month's salary to the petitioner on account of the debiting of the leave account of the petitioner, whose benefit in the form of LTC was not given to the petitioner.

B) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to give Air Tickets to the destination of the petitioner's choice, or equivalent amount in money.

2. Learned Counsel for the respondent has placed on record a receipt dated 15th January, 2001 signed by the petitioner which goes to show that he was paid a sum of Rs. 1,81,920.80/- towards leave encashment. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the submission that the petitioner has not been paid one month's salary by way of leave encashment. As regards the second grievance, it is submitted that this facility was not available to those employees of the Bank who opted for voluntary retirement scheme. Reference in this regard has been made to a circular dated 15th December, 2000 annexed as 'Annexure P-2' to the writ petition. A perusal of this annexure supports what has been stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent.

3. Apart from what has been noticed above, even otherwise, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition for it has been filed by the petitioner after five years of his retirement. Of course, it is submitted that the petitioner has been making representations to the respondents but that does not explain the delay. It was open to the petitioner to move this Court if his representations were not being responded to.

4. In this view of the matter, the writ petition has no merit. The same is dismissed.