Sapna Suman vs State Bank Of India And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

The following reliefs as formulated by the petitioner have been claimed in the writ petition--

“(i) Direction to the respondents authorities to issue family pension in favour of the present petitioner and her sister.

(ii) Direction to the respondent authorities to make other payments in favour of the present petitioner and her sister.

(iii) Direction to the respondents authorities not to make any payment in favour of Lalita Devi.

(iv) Any other relief or reliefs which the petitioner may be found entitled to.â€​

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked if a rejoinder would be required to be filed in response to the counter affidavit filed on

behalf of the respondent-State Bank of India, to which he stated that no rejoinder is required to be filed in the matter.

Without going deep into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, this Court takes note of the categorical statement in paragraph 12 of the writ

petition to the effect that consequent upon the death of her father, nothing has been paid to the petitioner and her sister, rather one Lalita Devi has

started getting pension of her deceased father. On the other hand, the complete details of payments made to Lalita Devi (second wife of the deceased

father of the petitioner), Sandhya Suman (sister of the petitioner) and the petitioner herself, have been enumerated in paragraph 4 of the counter

affidavit. Reference has also been made to Annexure-D, which is a letter written by the three payees aforesaid addressed to the State Bank of India

specifying the proportion in which the payment would be distributed inter se.

Contrary stand has been taken by the parties with regard to the petitioner having received any payment, which goes to the root of the issue. In view

of such disputed question of fact, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition stands dismissed.