AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vikas Bahl, J
This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner as per Notification dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure P-8).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the grievances raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition, the petitioner had given a representation dated 13.02.2019 (Annexure P-9) and he would be satisfied at this stage, in case, the competent authority of respondent No.1-Bank is directed to consider the said representation dated 13.02.2019 (Annexure P-9) in a time bound manner and in case, the pleas raised by the petitioner are found to be meritorious, then, to grant necessary relief, in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the competent authority of respondent No.1-Bank would consider the said representation dated 13.02.2019 (Annexure P-9), in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the present order.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present Civil Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of respondent No.1-Bank to consider the representation dated 13. 02.2019 (Annexure P-9), in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the present order and in case, the pleas raised by the petitioner are found to be meritorious, then, the competent authority would grant necessary relief, in accordance with law and in case, the competent authority is of the opinion that the pleas raised by the petitioner are not meritorious, then, a speaking order rejecting the same be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the present order.
This Court has not opined on the merits of the case and the competent authority of respondent No.1-Bank would consider the case of the petitioner independently, in accordance with law.