1 CGHC010234242024 2026:CGHC:37926 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 694 of 2024 N. C. Sarkar S/o Late Shri C. C. Sarkar, Since Died Through Lrs Smt. Chhabi Rani Sarkar W/o N.C. Sarkar Aged About 67 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Ring Road No. 2, Bilaspur, P.S. Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner. Versus 1 - The Chairman And Managing Director Uco Bank Head Office 10, Biplabi Trailokya Maharaj Sarani, (Brabourna Road) Kolkata- 700001 2 - The General Manager (Personal) U.C.O Bank Head Office 10, Biplabi Trailokya Maharaj Sarani, (Brabourna Road) Kolkata- 700001 3 - Mr. V.P. Kapur Ex. Divisional Manager, (Disciplinary Authority) Uco Bank Civil Line Raja Talab, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Mr. N.C. Jain (Inquiry Officer) Uco Bank C/o. A.G.M. Office Uco Bank, Bhopal (M.P.) ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 24/08/2026 1. Heard on the application for substitution of legal heirs in place of the original petitioner (IA No. 01/2024). Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Smt. Chhabi Rani Sarkar is the legally wedded wife of the original petitioner, namely, Late Shri N.C. Sarkar. Therefore, the above application and the MCC have been filed by her, and he prays to allow the application. 3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application (IA No. 01/2024), the same is allowed. 4. Heard on the application for restoration of W.P. No. 1675/2002, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 04.04.2013. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the original writ petition, W.P. No. 1675/2002 (N.C. Sarkar Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director, UCO Bank), was filed by the husband of the applicant, namely Late N.C. Sarkar, seeking terminal benefits. He passed away on 12.01.2012. However, his wife, Smt. Chhabi Rani Sarkar (applicant), was not aware of the proceedings and the pendency of the original writ petition, due to which it was dismissed for want of prosecution on 04.04.2013. He further submits that since terminal benefits were not granted, the applicant, being unaware of the original writ petition, filed W.P.(S) No. 01/2017 claiming the service benefits of her late husband. In the said case, the respondent filed a reply on 07.06.2021 disclosing the dismissal of the earlier writ petition, which is when the applicant first came to know about it. As such, the present MCC has been filed. He also submits that the applicant is old aged lady and is not having proper knowledge about legal proceedings. He further submits that the non- appearance in the original writ petition on the date it was dismissed for want of prosecution was bona fide and not intentional. Hence, the MCC may be allowed and the original writ petition restored for hearing. 3 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the dismissal of original W.P. No. 1675/2002 came to the knowledge of the applicant in the year 2021. Despite that, this MCC has been filed after a prolonged delay, therefore, the MCC may be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application for restoration. 8. Since the original petitioner, Late N.C. Sarkar, passed away on 12.01.2012 prior to the dismissal of W.P. No. 1675/2002 on 04.04.2013 for want of prosecution, and further considering that his wife was unaware of the pendency of the original petition leading her to file another writ petition and eventually acquire knowledge of the original petition in the year 2021 only; and taking into account the reasons assigned in the instant MCC, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer for restoration. 9. Accordingly, the MCC is allowed. 10. The Registry is directed to restore W.P. No. 1675/2002 (N.C. Sarkar Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director, UCO Bank) to its original number and list the case for hearing as per the roster. 11. The Registry is also directed to reflect the names of the present counsel for both parties while listing the original writ petition in the cause list so that they may get information about listing of the case, as they were not counsel in the original writ petition at the relevant time. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay