Delhi District Court
Smt Sudesh vs Punjab National Bank Through General ... on 14 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. TANYA BAMNIYAL, SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE-CUM- RENT CONTROLLER, SOUTH WEST, DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS SCJ 1429/21
SMT SUDESH,
W/o Late Sh. Soloman John,
R/o F-222, Vardhman Enclave,
Shiv Vihar Karala, Near Water Tank,
Kanjhalwala, New Delhi-110081. ...........Plaintiff.
Versus.
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,
Through General Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
G.S. AD Head Office Plot No. 4,
Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075. ...........Defendant.
SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION
Date of institution of the suit : 23.12.2021
Date of reserving for judgment : 08.10.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 14.10.2025
JUDGMENT
Plaint/Brief Facts
1. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that the husband of the plaintiff died on 03.03.2006 and was employed as Daftary with the defendant. The husband of the plaintiff joined his job on 23.11.1979 and served the defendant for more than 26 years. After the death of the husband of the plaintiff, it was becoming harder for the family to maintain the basic standard of life and her family is at the verge of starvation. The Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date: 2025.10.14 16:11:12 +0530 CS SCJ 1429/21 SMT SUDESH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Page no. 1 of 11 defendant has paid merely Rs. 1,60,000/- as his dues and funds, whereas other dues funds pension are still pending with the defendant and promise of defendant to give employment to one of the family members of the plaintiff on compassionate grounds is still in the air. It is averred that the plaintiff had made various requests for the same but all in vain. That the plaintiff made a written request dated 06.03.2019 with Ministry of Finance for grievance and also wrote a separate letter addressing the defendant on 25.03.2019. That due to non-cooperation and non-coordination, the plaintiff again approached the Ministry of Finance in written on 10.06.2019 for her grievance but to no avail. Hence, the present suit.
Written Statement
2. Defendant was served with the summons of the present suit. On appearance, written statement (hereinafter referred to as 'WS') were filed by defendant, wherein it has been stated that after the death of Sh. Solomon John , a sum of Rs. 2,58,757.46/- was paid to the plaintiff as the legal heir of the deceased employee as provident fund on 24.03.2006. Subsequently, a lump sum of compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs was paid to the plaintiff in terms of the scheme for payment of lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment and hence, no cause of action arises in favour of the plaintiff to file the present suit. That seeking employment of a family member is also time barred and not admissible as per law as the husband of the plaintiff died in 2006 and the suit is filed in 2021, is not maintainable. That a lump sum Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date: 2025.10.14 16:11:17 +0530 CS SCJ 1429/21 SMT SUDESH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Page no. 2 of 11 compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs was paid to the family of the deceased in terms of the scheme for payment of lump sum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment and hence, the prayer for employment of a family member is not maintainable. That the plaintiff also does not disclose who is the legal heir entitled to seeks employment on compassionate grounds. That the plaintiff has not disclosed which are the dues not paid to her and being now claimed in the suit and all the dues including the PF amount of Rs. 2,58,757.46 was paid. That the plaintiff also concealed the fact that ex-gratia paid to the plaintiff in lieu of compassionate grounds which the plaintiff has not disclosed in the plaint. That no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the plaintiff. That there is no merit in the present suit and the same be dismissed.
Issues
3. On the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 30.11.2023:
1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction for directing the defendant to pay the dues alongwith interests, as sought in prayer clause (a)? OPP
2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction for directing the defendant to employ one family member of plaintiff, as sought in prayer clause (b)? OPP
3) Whether there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff?
OPD Digitally signed
by TANYA
TANYA BAMNIYAL
BAMNIYAL Date:
2025.10.14
16:11:22 +0530
CS SCJ 1429/21 SMT SUDESH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Page no. 3 of 11
4) Whether present suit is barred by limitation? OPD
5) Whether present suit is barred by principle of resjudicata? OPD
6) Relief?
Plaintiff's Evidence
4. In order to prove her case, plaintiff examined two witnesses. PW1/plaintiff herself, who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. He also relied upon documents, such as Copy of employment ID of deceased husband of plaintiff, Ex. PW1/1 (OSR), Copy of death certificate of husband of plaintiff, Ex. PW1/2, Ledger printout from April, 2001 to September, 2001 regarding employment of deceased, Ex. PW1/3, Copy of complaint dated 06.03.2019 given to Ministry of Finance (receiving of the complaint bearing seal of the concerned department seen and returned), Ex. PW1/4, Copy of information dated 25.03.2019 given to defendant regarding complaint given to Ministry of Finance (receiving of the information bearing seal of the concerned department seen and returned), Ex. PW1/5, Copy of complaint dated 25.03.2019 to PNB, HRDMD, (receiving of the complaint bearing seal of the concerned department seen and returned), Ex. PW1/6, Copy of complaint dated 10.06.2019 given to Govt. of India, Finance Ministry, Mark PW1/A, Copy of legal notice dated 22.07.2020, Ex. PW1/7, Copy of postal receipt, Mark PW1/B, Copy of Aadhar Card of plaintiff, Ex. PW1/8 (OSR) and copy of order in CS 499/2021, Ex. PW1/9 (colly.). Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date:
2025.10.14 16:11:26 +0530 CS SCJ 1429/21 SMT SUDESH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Page no. 4 of 11
5. PW2 Sh. Apurva Kumar was the summoned witness. He brought on record the PF and pension fund department circular dated 16.08.2010, Ex. PW2/1, copy of the letter dated 31.05.2016 address to the plaintiff, Ex. PW2/2, copy of the note dated 12.04.2006 about the terminal dues paid to the plaintiff/her husband, Ex. PW2/3, copy of the receipt dated 06.04.2006 by the plaintiff, Ex. PW2/4, copy of the HRD circular dated 07.01.2005 with regard to the scheme for payment of exgratia in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground, Ex. PW2/5 and copy of the receipt signed by the plaintiff for Rs. 6,00,000/-, Ex. PW2/6. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff evidence was closed.
Defendant's Evidence
6. On the other hand, defendant did not lead evidence and matter was listed for final arguments.
Final Arguments
7. Ld. LAC for plaintiff addressed part arguments that plaintiff is entitled to pension and dues, however, since no one appeared for plaintiff on 08.10.2025, opportunity to address arguments was closed. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendant argued that the suit is barred by limitation and devoid of any cause of action.
Digitally
signed by
TANYA
TANYA BAMNIYAL
BAMNIYAL Date:
2025.10.14
16:11:30
+0530
CS SCJ 1429/21 SMT SUDESH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Page no. 5 of 11
Analysis and Findings
8. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
Issue No. 4) Whether present suit is barred by limitation? OPD Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. The admitted dates reveal that the deceased employee expired on 03.03.2006. The terminal dues were paid within that very year as per Ex. PW2/3 i.e. letter dated 12.04.2006. The option for pension under the 9th Bipartite Settlement Ex. PW2/1 was circulated on 16.08.2010, offering a window of 60 days for exercising the option and refunding the provident fund contribution. The plaintiff neither exercised the option nor refunded the amount within that period. The present suit was instituted on 23.12.2021, i.e., after more than 15 years from the death of the employee and more than 11 years after the pension option was offered. The limitation period for seeking a civil remedy of mandatory injunction or recovery is three years under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The representations made in 2019 or the legal notice of 2020 cannot extend or revive limitation, as the cause of action had long extinguished. In M/S Rakman Industries Ltd. V. M/S Sumaja Electro Infra Pvt. Ltd.1, it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the correspondence between the parties also does not extend the period of limitation. Sending reminders or communication between the parties does not extend the limitation period as if such a contention is accepted then the period of limitation Digitally signed by TANYA BAMNIYAL
1. DoD November 09th, 2022 TANYA Date: BAMNIYAL 2025.10.14 16:11:35 +0530 CS SCJ 1429/21 SMT SUDESH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Page no. 6 of 11 would never come to an end. It was opined that a litigant has to be vigilant of its rights and avail remedies before expiry of the statutory period of limitation. Accordingly, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Even without examining the matter on merits, the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Accordingly, issue No. (4) is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff Issue No. 1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction for directing the defendant to pay the dues alongwith interests, as sought in prayer clause (a)? OPP
9. The plaintiff has neither pleaded nor proved any specific outstanding dues payable by the defendant. Ex. PW2/3 relied upon by her itself evidences that all terminal dues amounting to Rs.1,82,264.83 were duly settled and received by her. The plaintiff has relied upon document Ex. PW-2/3, which is the statement of dues paid to the plaintiff. As per the said document, a sum of Rs. 1,82,264.83 was finally settled and paid to the plaintiff (Smt. Sudesh Kumari) on 06.04.2006 towards full and final settlement of all terminal dues of her deceased husband. The said exhibit clearly records that the following amounts were paid under distinct heads financial assistance of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-, posthumous beneficiary fund Rs. 30,000/-, provident fund Rs. 2,58,757.46, leave encashment Rs. 51,467.46 and gratuity Rs. 1,67,398/-, totalling the admissible dues, from which deductions of Rs. 2,59,358.09 (IPO Loan & O/D Limit) and Rs. 36,000/- (Thrift and Credit Society) were made, resulting in the net Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date: 2025.10.14 16:11:40 +0530 CS SCJ 1429/21 SMT SUDESH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Page no. 7 of 11 payable amount of Rs. 1,82,264.83. The said amount was duly received by the plaintiff against proper receipt, which bears her signature. The authenticity of Ex. PW-2/3 has not been challenged in cross-examination. On the contrary, during her deposition, the plaintiff has admitted that she received payments from the defendant bank in the year 2006. Thus, the contention that any amount remains unpaid stands conclusively disproved. Accordingly, it stands established from Ex. PW-2/3 that all legal dues of the deceased employee were settled and disbursed to the plaintiff in 2006 itself. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff seeking a direction to the defendant to pay 'remaining dues with interest' is devoid of substance and not maintainable either in fact or in law.". The plaintiff's own admission in cross-examination that she received Rs.6,00,000/- ex-gratia amount further establishes that the defendant discharged its obligations under the Ex-gratia Scheme of 07.01.2005. There is no material on record showing that any further payment remains outstanding or that the plaintiff refunded the employer's contribution to PF, which was a pre-condition to becoming eligible for pension under Ex. PW2/1 (9th Bipartite Settlement). Without fulfillment of the mandatory condition of refund, the plaintiff cannot claim any pensionary benefit. It is also pertinent to note that the plaintiff's prayer clause does not seek pension at all, and the claim was only orally advanced during arguments. Even otherwise, the right to pension under the said settlement would arise only if the option and refund requirements were met, which is admittedly not the case. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to establish that any amount remains due from Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date: 2025.10.14 16:11:45 +0530 CS SCJ 1429/21 SMT SUDESH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Page no. 8 of 11 the defendant, or that she is entitled to any pension. Accordingly, issue No. (1) is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No. 2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction for directing the defendant to employ one family member of plaintiff, as sought in prayer clause (b)? OPP
10.It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff received Rs.6,00,000/- under the Ex-gratia Scheme dated 07.01.2005, which was formulated specifically in lieu of compassionate appointment. The said scheme provides that no compassionate appointment shall be granted where the ex-gratia compensation is paid. The plaintiff, having availed the said benefit, cannot now claim compassionate appointment.
11.The husband of the plaintiff fell under the category of subordinate staff, and Rs.6,00,000/- was the maximum ex-gratia payable under the scheme, which the plaintiff duly received and acknowledged.
12.In view of this, the plaintiff is barred by the principle of estoppel and election from seeking employment in lieu of a benefit already accepted. Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right; it is a concession governed strictly by the scheme in force at the relevant time. Once the plaintiff accepted the ex-gratia compensation in 2006, she extinguished her claim to compassionate employment. Accordingly, issue No. (2) is decided against the plaintiff.
Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date: 2025.10.14 16:11:49 +0530 CS SCJ 1429/21 SMT SUDESH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Page no. 9 of 11
Issue No. 3) Whether there is no cause of action in favour of plaintiff? OPD
13. The plaintiff has failed to show any continuing or subsisting cause of action. The payments were settled in 2006, and the pension option was not availed in 2010. Subsequent representations cannot revive a time- barred or concluded cause of action. Furthermore, the plaintiff's acceptance of ex-gratia compensation operates as election having chosen monetary compensation over employment, she cannot now seek to reopen the matter. Accordingly, issue no. (3) is decided in favour of the defendant.
Issue No. 5) Whether present suit is barred by principle of resjudicata? OPD
14. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff had earlier instituted a suit with similar prayers before the learned Civil Judge, Rohini Courts, which was subsequently withdrawn by her on 18.09.2021 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Since that suit was never adjudicated upon on merits and no final determination of the substantial issues between the parties was made, the essential ingredients of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not satisfied. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the present suit is barred by the principle of res judicata or by principles analogous thereto, as there has been no prior adjudication on merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, issue no. (5) is decided in favour of the plaintiff. Digitally signed by TANYA TANYA BAMNIYAL BAMNIYAL Date: 2025.10.14 16:11:54 +0530 CS SCJ 1429/21 SMT SUDESH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Page no. 10 of 11 Issue no. (6) Relief
15. In view of the foregoing findings:
(i) The suit is barred by limitation;
(ii) The plaintiff has failed to prove that any dues remain unpaid;
(iii) The claim for compassionate appointment is barred by acceptance of ex-gratia compensation; and
(iv) The plaintiff has no subsisting cause of action.
16. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief claimed in the plaint.
17. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
by TANYA
TANYA BAMNIYAL
BAMNIYAL Date: 2025.10.14
16:11:59 +0530
Announced in open (TANYA BAMNIYAL)
court on 14.10.2025 SCJ-cum-RC/ South-West
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
This judgement consists of 11 pages and each and every page of this judgement is signed by me.
CS SCJ 1429/21 SMT SUDESH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Page no. 11 of 11