Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16738 (RAJ)

SHYAM SINGH SON OF SHRI KARE SINGH v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE BHARATPUR CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK

CW/2320/2026 · 2026-02-06

Anand Sharma

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:5705] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2320/2026 Shyam Singh Son Of Shri Kare Singh, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Bah Soniga, Kagarol, District Agra (U.p.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, The Bharatpur Central Co-Operative Bank, Head Office Headquarter Bijlighar, Bharatpur (Raj.) 2. Registrar, Rajasthan Sahakari Samitiya, Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Brijendra Singh Kachhawa For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 06/02/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayers: "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept this writ petition and directed to respondents to give consequential benefit as Branch Manager in the interest of justice." 2. It is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Banking Assistant on 13.01.1978 and on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 31.07.2011. It is also stated that the petitioner ought to have been granted benefits while treating him Branch Manager. 3. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. [2026:RJ-JP:5705] (2 of 2) [CW-2320/2026] 4. It is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner retired on 31.07.2011 and has utterly failed to show from the record as to how the petitioner was entitled for the benefits on the post of Branch Manager and the petitioner has also not placed anything on record to show that in last 14 years, the petitioner has ever raised his grievance before the respondent- Bank. The prayer made in the writ petition is also totally inconceivable and has no apparent corelation with the facts stated, therefore, under these circumstances, writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. 5. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/56