Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010069052022 2025:GAU-AS:14913 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2571/2022 SADEK ALI S/O- LATE KUDDUS ALI, HOUSE NO. 131, VILL.- BANDAR KHOWA, P.S. SORBHOG, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM-781317. VERSUS THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRALISED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE, NORTH EASTERN CIRCLE, SHUBHAM GREENS, LOKHRA CHARIALI, NH-37, GUWAHATI-781040. 2:THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA SORBHOG BRANCH SORBHOG BARPETA ASSAM-781317 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD S HOQUE, MR. M DEKA,MR S JAFRI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B K SEN, MR A HUSSAIN,MR F HAQUE BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 04.11.2025 Heard Mr S Hoque, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr B K Sen, learned counsel appearing for the State Bank of India, for both the respondents in the writ petition. Page No.# 2/4 2. The grievance raised in this writ petition is that the petitioner who is the son of Late Md Kuddus Ali was not disbursed the amount lying in the bank account of Late Md Kuddus Ali, by the State Bank of India, after Late Md Kuddus Ali had expired. The petitioner claims that the father of the petitioner, Late Md Kuddus Ali had superannuated from his services under the Indian Railway and was entitled to a pension, and as per the Pension Payment Order issued on 15.10.2015, the pension would be payable to the father of the petitioner from 01.01.2016 onwards. As per the petitioner, certain amount of pension has also been deposited in the account of his deceased father, but the pensioner was not even allowed to withdraw money from the said account without being assigned any reason by the Bank. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner had expired on 07.05.2019 and thereafter, when he approached the Bank Manager to be allowed to withdraw the money lying in the account of his deceased father, the same was verbally rejected, and therefore, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court praying appropriate relief. 4. Mr Hoque, the learned counsel for the petitioner ha submitted that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent/bank does not have any authority under the law or the banking regulations to withhold money which was deposited into the account of the deceased father of the petitioner as his pension and further, since the petitioner has been named as a nominee of the said account, the banking authorities could not have denied to release the money to the petitioner. He, accordingly, prays that appropriate directions may be passed to the respondent/bank to release all sums available in the pension account of his deceased father, at the earliest. 5. Mr B K Sen, the learned counsel appearing for the State Bank of India has submitted that the affidavit-in-opposition has been sent for vetting and he would be filing the affidavit in a short time. However, on a query raised by this Court, as to the reasons as to why the petitioner had not been allowed to withdraw money from the Page No.# 3/4 account, although he was admittedly, named as the nominee for the said account, the learned counsel submits that there is no record with the Bank that the petitioner had made any approach, as required under the procedure laid down for a nominee to operate and withdraw money from the account of a deceased account holder. 6. On a query made by this Court to Mr Hoque, it was submitted that there is, in fact, no written record even with the writ petition to show that any approach as required under the Regulations had been made to the Bank authorities. This is surprising. The writ petition was initiated in the year 2022. It is but obvious that unless the required forms, applications etc. are placed before the Bank to consider and take appropriate action for release of money lying in the account of a deceased account holder, the Bank would be under no responsibility to release such money only on verbal requests made. 7. Faced with the situation, Mr Hoque, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner would not be averse to making appropriate applications and filling up appropriate forms as required under the banking procedures to claim the money lying in the account of his deceased father, of whom he had been named as a nominee. He fairly concedes that it is only on refusal of the bank authorities to disburse him such money, on the basis of his being a nominee that other appropriate forums of law would be required to be approached for redressal of grievances. 8. This writ petition is thus, disposed of, allowing liberty to the petitioner to take such necessary steps before the bank authorities by filling up necessary applications, forms etc. to claim the money which is lying in the account of the deceased father. 9. It has been submitted that some amount of pension had not been deposited in the account of the deceased father because the deceased father did not submit the necessary life certificate, at the relevant point of time. It is made clear that now, since there is a definitive date indicating the death of the deceased father of the petitioner, the bank would take appropriate steps to take note of the same and have the pension amount as entitled to the deceased father to be deposited in the said account and on an application Page No.# 4/4 being made by the petitioner to the bank authorities, the bank authorities would cooperate to see that any disbursal or rejection, as required under the law should be made at an early date to redress the grievances of the petitioner raised in this writ petition. 10. Writ Petition, accordingly, stands closed with the above directions. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant