JAYMALA DEVI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to release all the death-cum-retiral benefits of her husband including family pension.

(2.) The factual matrix, which has led for filing of the present writ petition, is that, the petitioner got married to one Thakri Uraon as the first wife of the said Thakri Uraon who left her. After marriage petitioner was living with husband and the proof evidencing the relationship of the petitioner with late Thakri Uraon is evident from Annexure-1 series. The husband of the petitioner who was permanent employee of State Bank of India working on the post of Manager, died in harness on 29.05.2015. After death of the husband, the petitioner submitted representations enclosing the death certificate of her husband to the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner also approached the respondent for death-cum-retiral benefits including the family pension and the petitioner was asked by the respondent for furnishing details. The name of the petitioner as wife has been mentioned in the P.F. statement as per Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The name of the petitioner has also been mentioned as nominee for Gratuity as evident from Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Due to inaction of the respondent for not releasing the post retiral benefits, the petitioner left with no alternative, approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of her grievance.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the action of the respondent in not releasing the death-cum-retiral benefit including the family pension notwithstanding the fact that the name of the petitioner appears as nominee, is wholly arbitrary, unjust and unsustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents are supposed to follow the rules, regulations, circular in relation to releasing the death-cum-retiral benefit of the late husband of the petitioner and any deviation thereof would amount to stony silence, indifference and apathy which cannot be countenanced in law.