Shashi Devi vs General Manager, UCO Bank And Others

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The petitioner’s husband was appointed as a peon in the office of the respondent no.4 in the year, 2015. The marriage of the petitioner and the deceased Anil Kumar was solemnized on 12.11.2017. Anil Kumar died on 03.02.2021. The petitioner had requested to the respondent Authorities to give an appointment to the petitioner on the compassionate ground. The petitioner moved a representation dated 17.12.2021 to the respondent no.4. Another representation was moved by the petitioner before the respondent no.1 on 16.08.2022. Both the representations are still pending. The respondents have also not paid the pending dues of the petitioner’s husband. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: -

“(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the cause of the petitioner for appointment on com passionate ground in the respondent department under dying in harness.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay all the pending dues of the petitioner's husband along with 18% interest to the present petitioner.

(iii) Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circum stances of the case.

(iv). Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.”

Heard Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, learned counsel for the respondents.

Mr. Akshay Latwal, Advocate, submitted that there was a dispute between the petitioner and her mother-in-law. They have settled their disputes. Therefore, the petitioner is willing to move a fresh representation along with relevant documents to the respondent authorities.

Mr. Akshay Latwal, Advocate, has requested to decide the present writ petition by directing the respondent no.4, Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Sabhawala, District Dehradun to decide the representation of the petitioner and for the said purpose, she shall move her representation along with the relevant documents in the perform a of the Bank within two weeks’ from today.

Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate, for the respondent no.4 has submitted that four weeks’ time is required to decide the representation of the petitioner.

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respondents, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner Shashi Devi moves a representation along with the relevant documents as per rule of the Bank within two weeks’ from today, the respondent no.4 shall decide the said representation as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four weeks thereafter.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.