Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Singh vs Uco Bank And Ors on 2 September, 2024
SANDEEP SETHI
2024.09.06 02:23
CWP-21688-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(118)
CWP-21688-2024
Date of Decision:-02.09.2024
Amarjit Singh
beeen Petitioner
Versus
UCO Bank and others
beeees Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN
oh 2 2h 3
Present: Mr. Harbans Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aseem Rai, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
oh 2 2h 3
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner w.e.f.
30.11.2003 i.e. the date from which he was compulsorily retired.
2. Cutting the long story short, the petitioner has challenged the
action of the respondents of compulsory retiring him and lost the litigation
right up till the Hon'ble Supreme Court and admittedly, the retirement
gratuity, provident fund etc. have already been released to the petitioner.
After losing the battle up till the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner in
the interregnum, made an application and the only strength on which the
present petition has been filed is that the application submitted by the
petitioner on 04.12.2003 was forwarded by the Branch Manager to the
Zonal Officer that too in the year 2014.
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this Order/Judgment
CWP-21688-2024
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Clause 14 of the
UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, which deals with
qualifying service and since the petitioner has rendered more than 10 years
of service, he was entitled to pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the legal notice was issued in the year 2014 and was duly
responded to by the reply of the authorities and, thereafter, the petitioner
did not take any action.
4. The alleged representation dated 22.04.2019 (Annexure P-14)
cannot be relied upon as there is no proof of the same being served upon the
respondents at any stage.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
6. A perusal of the paper book demonstrates that the petitioner
had approached this Court on an earlier occasion also by filing CWP-601-
2020 which was argued by the petitioner at length and the same was
withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action with
better particulars including "the documents showing that the petitioner at
any given point of time, before his compulsory retirement had opted for
pension,". The present petition also does not disclose any document
demonstrating the above.
7. In light of the above, finding no merit, the present petition is
dismissed.
(ALOK JAIN)
JUDGE
September 02, 2024.
Sandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether Reportable:- Yes/No
SANDEEP SETHI
2024.09.06 02:23
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this Order/Judgment
