Devi Lal Jain vs Punjab National Bank And Ors.
2018 Latest Caselaw 804 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Date of Order: February 02, 2018

+                   W.P.(C) 923/2018 & C.M. 3906/2018
      DEVI LAL JAIN                                  ..... Petitioner
                           Through: Mr. N.C.Gupta and Mr. Deepak
                           Singh, Advocates

                           Versus
      PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS.        ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. V.
                   Govinda Ramanan, Advocates
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                        ORDER

(ORAL)

1. Petitioner was compulsorily retired on 3rd February, 2012 and he challenges impugned order of 7th November, 2012 (Annexure P-2) whereby pension of `6,38,980/- was credited to his account.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had made several Representations to respondents to seek full pension instead of 2/3rd pension and the said Representations have not been responded to, thereby compelling petitioner to serve a legal notice of 5 th September, 2017 (Annexure P-8) upon respondents. It is further submitted that there is no response to the said legal notice also.

3. Learned counsel for respondents raises the question of territorial jurisdiction while relying upon Supreme Court's decision in M/S Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. ILR (2011) VI Delhi 729.

4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with direction to third respondent to positively respond to petitioner's legal notice (Annexure P-8), if not already done, within a period of six weeks from today and in case full pension is not to be granted to petitioner, then reasons for not doing so, be indicated in the response so given and petitioner be apprised of it within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of his remedies as available in law, if need be.

5. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of while leaving the question of territorial jurisdiction open, as there is no adjudication on merits in this petition.

Dasti.

SUNIL GAUR (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 02, 2018 r