H S Jagannatha vs General Manager Syndicate Bank on 4 December, 2008

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KA§NATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 4*" may OF DECEMBER 20§8i'_
BEFORE 1' 

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.B:LLaé§AVf:. 3

w.p. No.546e/2uc6_js§','"' 
Between: '
H.S.Jagannatha, v_ _
D.No.426, Opp. Sriifiam Mandir; 
Ram Mandi: Read, 'a"j f 5 .x ' 
Tiptur » 572 202. ' ",i,'.;;E5T:TIoNBR

(By Sri:V.R,K§lkarfii;'édfiif,V'? 

GeneralVfiahagér, ,"' 
Syndicate Bank;

"*MHe&daQffi¢e,'~-.Hr _____
'Manipa;;_~  .. RESPQNDENT

A"{By_MfQ}Sgfififiraswamy Ramas & Anand, Advs.)

and-nu-n

uw$:s'w.9. is filed u/A.226 a 227 of the

w = Constitution of India, praying to direct the
~fres§9ndent Bank to sanction the ccmpassionate

ailswanee in lieu of regular pension under the

_:  provisions of regulation Na.3l of the
'= Syndicate Bank (employees) Pension Regulations

1995.

h»/"



This W.E. coming on for prelimifiagy

hearing in 'B' Group this day, the Court made

the following:m
0 R D E 3"W~.

The learned counse1.forVths partiss,. E

2. The grievsncs 6f the péfiitiofier in
this writ pe€ifi0fis?;'is;fs°sthat his
representati0fis,da@s§ ifiefiszoefi"asd l7--10~2005
have not  ""}§>3,r.'the respondent.

Therefpre, this wgit petition.

V3, L”= ‘ The ; “betitioner has given

“”arep£ssssta§iofis dated 12w8–2005 and 17-10«2o05

Vrsqfiestgfig” “the respondent to sanction

cémfisssisssfis allowance. The respondent being

°a, <the "cshcerned authdrity, ought to have

7sossidered the representations, butIhas failed

"» ts? do so. Therefcre, it is necessary to

s"direct the respondent to consider the

V

representations of the petitioner an@ttޤ$sx

appropriate orders.

4. Accordingly, the.” Kari: 3.pe2t.ttét_~:1{i”:V”i$”.

allowed and the respqndefitttié di;eCteflgttbV

consider the representatitiias 0f”‘t:l’:’ettpetvj.tVioner
vide Annexures-~’A.”‘ and _.”‘”B”‘,-I’;itit’-accotdtafice with
law, within four m<'5ntfhs:"Vv date of

receipt of §.a'*¢:§py igfg tifiis.

"""