NEENA R MIRCHANDANI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi It is painful that in such a serious matter of pension of a widow who was aged 66; years on the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 12.10.1999, 70 year old by now, the petition is filed in a very casual manner, without placing on record the detailed facts, as to what happened after order under challenge Annexure "E" dated 14.08.1999 was passed by the respondent Bank. In order dated 14.08.1999, Annexure 'E' to this petition nothing is stated except the fact that after the husband of the petitioner expired on 09.06.1986, the petitioner was drawing pension from the respondent Bank (Bank of Baroda, Fatehganj Branch). Under the family pension scheme the rate at which the petitioner was paid the pension, was reduced from 1991, but inadvertently it was continued to be paid at the old rate, which resulted into payment of an excess amount of Rs.95.081/-. It is stated in the letter that this amount is to be recovered from the petitioner.

(2.) Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. Handa, the learned advocate without placing anything on record, either by way of moving an application for amendment or otherwise, asserted that after filing of the petition the respondent Bank has stopped the payment of the amount of pension. The petition was though filed on 14.10.1999 was moved for admission hearing on 20.10.1999 only. On that day the matter was ordered to be placed before the appropriate Bench.

(3.) Despite order dated 06.12.1999 whereby order dated 23.11.1999 was to be complied with on or before 14.12.1999, a Civil Application for amendment being Civil Application No.31 of 2000 was filed only on 11.01.2000. This shows the sincerity with which the learned advocate attended the matter of a widowed pensioner. An advocate is supposed to take care of the interest of his client in a diligent mannerr but then from the record of the case such diligene is found missing.