A.K.Wadhera vs Punjab National Bank
2016 Latest Caselaw 5358 Del

$~22

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of Decision: August 12, 2016

+      W.P.(C) 6771/2001
       A.K.WADHERA                                       ..... Petitioner
                             Through:   Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Advocate

                    versus

       PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK                    ..... Respondent
                    Through: Mr. Vaibhav Kalra and Mr. Jasbir
                             Bidhuri, Advocates

       CORAM:

       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

REV.PET.356/2016 & C.M.29336/2016 (Delay) By way of this review petition, review of order of 2nd December, 2015 is sought by new counsel on the ground that the issue raised in the writ petition has not been decided, which ought to have been done.

At the outset, it is noted that this plea is preposterous and is rejected outrightly for the reason that vide order of 2nd December, 2015, petitioner was permitted to make a comprehensive representation with supporting documents within four weeks and respondent-Bank was to decide that representation. Such an order was passed because of lack of effective submissions by petitioner, who had chosen to argue in person.

In the order of 2nd December, 2015, the respective stands of the parties were noted and it was deemed appropriate not to go into disputed question and to give an opportunity to the respondent to make its stand clear, particularly in respect of petitioner's application of 10 th February, 1996 exercising the option of pension, as the said application of petitioner is accompanied by photocopy of the AD Card which prima facie shows that is bears the postal stamps of the respondent-Bank of 12th February, 1996.

In matters of pension, a liberal approach is adopted and, so one opportunity is granted to appellant to make a comprehensive representation to take up all the pleas as noted in the order under review and such a representation be made within a period of four weeks to respondent-Bank. As and when such a representation is received, the respondent-Bank shall afford an opportunity of hearing to petitioner or his authorized representative and shall consider the pleas taken in the representation threadbare and pass a speaking order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt. The fate of the representation be made known to petitioner to enable him to have recourse to law, if required.

With these directions, this review petition and the application are dismissed.

Dasti to both sides.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE AUGUST 12, 2016 s