Judgment · High Court

SRI N .D. JAE)IIAV Sb NARAYAN DADU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO 112:1, DWARAKA NAGAR. MONDOLLI ROAD, JAAGAL1WADI BELGAUM (BY SRI BAHUBALI A DHANAWADE, ADV) AND: PET1TIONER THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERAT1VE AGR1CLLTLRAL AND RURAL DE\ LLOPMENT BNK AN. ROAD. CHAMARAJPET, BANG ALOE 560 018 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DTRECTOR RESPONDENT (BY SHRI K L SRTNIVASA, ADV) THIS W,P. IS FILED UNDER ARPICLES 226 AND 227 OF PRAYING TO DIRECT TI IE THE CONSTITUTION OF INDL\ RESPONDENT BANK TO RELEASE/PAY THE GRATUITY AMOUNT AND OTHER: RETIREMENT BENEFITS TO THE• PETITIONER IN THE POST OF RECOVERY OFFICER FROM 3 1 5.2005 JILL FETE DSTE OF REALIZATION ETC. 2 ThIS WRIT PE’ITflON COMING ON FOR HEARING ThIS DAY. ThE COURT MADE ThE FOLLOWING: ORDER In the Instant case the petitioner has sought for a mandamus directing the respondent Bank to release/pay the gratuity amount and other retirement benefits to the petitioner In the post of Recoveiy Officer from 31/5/2005 tifi the date of realization and further he has sought for a direction directing the respondent Bank to pay the interest for the gratuity amount and other Retirement Benefits 0 16 from 31/5/2005 till the date of realization.

It Is the case of the petitioner that he Joined the service of the respondent Bank, as FDC on 7/2/1972 and thereafter considering his efficiency and hard work he was promoted from time to time. At the time of retirement, he was holding the post of Recovery Officer. After attaining the age of superannuation he was relieved from the services of the Bank ‘lde notification dated 19/8/2004. The respondent has a 3 issued a communication dated 28/2/2005 to the PCA and RD Bank, Belgaum, to submit ‘no due Certificate’. Petitioner submitted his representation dated 27/5/2005. The petitioner attained superannuation and was relieved from senrices on 31/5/2005. He has submitted a second representation requesting for the release of his gratuity amount and other retirement benefits on 24/11/2005. His request is neither considered nor taken any decision by the respondent Bank. Again he has one more representation on 18/3/2006 requesting the Bank Authority to release the gratuity amount and other retirement benefits. The same is also not considered. Therefore, the petitioner has presented this petition seeking appropriate relief as stated supra.

The only grievance of the petitioner is that his representations 27/5/2005, 24/11/2005 18/3/2006 are neither considered by the respondent Bank nor taken any decision as per the bye-laws of the Bank 4 coupled with the service rules and condition. The same is not Justifiable. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case. It would suffice for this Court to issue a direction to the respondent-Bank to consider the representations 18/3/2006 submitted by the petitioner and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order if not already considered and disposed oL The writ petition stands 24/11/2005 27/5/2005, disposed oL accordingly. Vmb/Sbs Sd! 3UDGE