DRAFT AWRIT

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF 13

THE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
ORDINARY ORIGINALJUDICATURE
CIVIL
AT
BOMBAY
WRIT PERITION NO. JURISDICTION
OF 20XX
DISTRICT: MUMBAI
INTHE MATTER OF
COURT UNDER EXERCISE OF
POWERS
ARTICLE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONHONOURABLE
226 OF THE
OF INDIA
Maya Goyal
Age: 63years, Occ. Retired
rlo Clo M.D. Redkar, S/82,
Parleshwar Society,
Shahaji Raje Road,
Vile Parle (East)
Mumbai - 400057.
. PETITIONER
..VERSUS...
1. The Chairman/Managing
Director/Secretary,
Life and Death Insurance Corporation of
India, a Corporation established
Under Insurance Act, 1956
having its office at
Yogakshema, Churchgate,
Mumbai- 400020.
2. The Sr. Divisional Manager
Division IV of Mumbai Region )
having its office at
Yogakshema, Churchgate,
Mumbai - 400020.
3. The Divisional Manager
LifeInsurance and Death Corporation
 of lndia, Drafting, Pleading and
Salary Savings Division
OS
Department
At S.V. Road, having its office
Santacruz (West)
Mumbai -400054.
C,onveyancing -

4. The Branch
Life InsuranceManager
)
and Death
Corporationof
India, Branch No. 880, having
Office atLaxmi Bldg. 5th floor
Sir P.M. Road, Fort,
Mumbai - 400001.
...RESPONDENTS
TO,
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDGE AND OTHER
PUSNE JUDGES OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT
OF JUDICATUREAT BOMBAY
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS:
The petitioner named above most respectfully begsto submit as under:
A. The Petitioner is compelled to knock the doors of this Hon'ble Court, in the
peculiar
circumstances, on account of the Respondents acting contrary to the settled position
law and service rules, as is apparent from the totally arbitrary letter dated 08/08/20Yy
issued by Respondent No. 4,which has affected the valuable rights of the petitioner and
thereafter unilaterally the Respondent No. 4 has revised the pension and deductei
amount without consent/authorisation by the Petitioner and authority of lay
Considering the urgency involved in the matter and further non-receipt of any justifñet
clarification from the Respondents, the Petitioner herein is left with no other alternative
than to file the present writ petition seeking directions that the Respondents be directed
to pay 2,34,135 towards arrears to which the petitioner is entitled to along with
interest (@ 12% p.a. and the Petitioner's pension be regularised as per the basic salary
pay as stated in the letter at the time of promotion of the Petitioner. The said letter of
alleged recovery issued by and acted upon by the Respondents and supported by
Respondent No. 1, 2and 4 is arbitrary, illegal and perverse, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case. The facts and circumstances compelling the petitioner to ile
this petitionare summarised as under:
1. The Petitioner is a Senior Citizen residing at the address mentioned in the cause
title. The Petitioner retired from the organisation of Respondents after providng
her dedicated and sincere services for mnore than 34 years. During the employment
of Petitioner, her service record has been unblemished. Petitioner is regular income
Lax payee and has deep roots in the society.
 Respondent No. 1 is the
2. (Hereinafter referred as Chair
LDIC),
man of the
Life 115
1956having its office at
a
Corporation
Yogakshema, Churchgate,
Insurance
established Corporation of India
Senior Divisional Manager of the under
Insurance
lookingMumbai. Respondent
the Act,
Mumbai Region having its office at LDIC after the No. 2is
Respondent No. 3 is the the same Division of
IV
DivisionalManager of address of
LDIC which is a Respondent Nol.
division having its office at Santacruz
the Branch Manager of LDIC, Branch No. (West), Mumbai and salary savings
FACTS AS
880 having its Respondent
office at Fort, No. 4 is
ADD REQUIRED. Mumbai.
4. It issubmitted that the Respondents have issued the said letter
the contention of the petitioner and the without considering
efficient services for a period of 34 years to petitioner has sincerely provided her
the
to state the pension is the only
atated that, the Respondent Nos. 2,major source of Respondent Fearing
organisation. Needless
livelihood.
3 and 4 were least
before issuing the said letter of reduction
repetition,
expected to apply
it is
their mind
of basic salary fixation by
despite the Petitioner being promoted. reducing it
Having not done
compelled to suffer serious prejudice at the instance of the so, the petitioner is
the letters issued by the Respondents. In view of
Respondents, the
serious losses particularly when the letter Petitioner
is compelled to bear and suffer
issued by the Respondents is apparently
not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5. The Petitioner is challenging the said letter
amongst others:
inter-alia on the following grounds,
GROUNDS
(a) The delay in giving the justified clarification for reduction of basic salary and
thereby claiming and deducting alleged recovery from the petitioner by
Respondent No. 4 is absolutely unreasonable and inconsiderate and
contemplates the non-action on part of Respondent No. 4.
(b) The letter dated 08/08/20XX issued by respondent No. 4 is absolutely illegal,
being an outcome of totalnon-application of mind deserves to be quashed and
set aside.
(c) That, the letter dated 08/08/20XX issued by Respondent No. 4 is apparently
issued against petitioner is erroneous and despite this being pointed out to the
Respondent No. 1,2, 3 and 4 the same has not being considered at all.
(d)
(e)
clarification and
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and grounds the delay in giving unsustainable
deducting the alleged recovery amount the impugned letter is grossly in
and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The respondents action is apparent not
question.
accordance with law and reflects a predetermined approach to the issue in
Ihe petitioner submits that it has an eminently good
case both on law and on
 Drafting, Pleading
U6 and

has sufficiently demonstrated

on the face of
the said action on the part
it, is illegal and improper and
CResdelpoanyodneveNyanci g
merits. The letter of alleged recovery is badin the eyes of law which the
of the
due to the
and 4
clarification by Respondent No. 2and 4,the petitioner will have to suffern
Ho,2.
for no good and valid reasons. Considering all such facts and
matter, there is no impediment in granting
communication by this Hon'ble Court.
prayed
circumsances
direction proidy
to the .
7. It is in these peculiar facts and circumstances that, the petitioner is
Honourable Court by filing the present petition bringing to the notice
Honourable Court, the casual and inconsiderate approach of the
be
iy
respondent
fore
J and 4, which is impermissible in law. It is submitted, that it was the
Respondent No. 2 and 4to consider the urgency, explanation and of the duty Nos.2,
stated by the petitioner. The total non-application of mind on the factual poSiton
Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4is having aserious far reaching consequencespart Þt the
Petitioner compelling the petitioner to face unwanted financial upon the.
Petitioner is compelled to put to bear the serious consequences arising out of The
letter issued by the Respondent No. 4.
crises.
the
8. That, from
the above submission, the petitioner has demonstrated
petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case. It is submitted that the the that,
will be put to suffer
the petitioner is in aireparable losses for no fault on her behalf particularly when
petitioner
issued by the position to demonstrate this Honourable Court that the let er
Respondent No. 4 is apparently illegal and improper and
ungrounded and thus it is a fit case for grant relief by the Honourable is
9. That, the petitioner herein has approached this Honourable Court.
ordnary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Court invoking its extra
petitioner are left with no other alternate or equally Constitution of India, as the
10. That, the petitioner till the date eficacious remedy under law.
of filing of the present writ
received any caveat. pettion has not
11. That, the petitioner herein has
not
the inaction on the part of the filed any other proceedings, being aggrieved by
the Honourable Apex Court and Respondent No. 2, 3, 4, in any other court including
this Honourable Court.
12. Petitioner reserves her right to alter, amend, modify any
and/or prayer clauses with the permission contentions, submissions
of this Hon'ble Court.
13. The cause of action arose in
Mumbai and the Respondents have their offices in
Mumbai. Hence, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
Hence, this Petition.
l16 Drafting, Pleading and
merits. The letter of alleged recovery is bad in the eyes of law which Conveya ncing
the
- l,
has sufficiently demonstrated the said action on the part of the
Responderin tpeiNot on.e2r,3
and 4on the face of it, is illegal and improper and due to the delay
clarification by Respondent No. 2and 4,the petitioner willhave to
for no good and valid reasons. Considering all such facts and
provid
suf er huge oflogs
matter, there is no impediment in granting prayed direction to
communication by this Hon'ble Court.
circumstancesthe said
7. It is in these peculiar facts and circumstances that, the ptitioner
Honourable Court by filing the present petition bringing to the
Honourable Court,the casual and inconsiderate approach of the notice before this
3and 4, which is impermissible in law. It is submitted, that it respondent
Respondent No. 2and 4to consider the urgency, explanation and
was
the duty Nosof t.2h.e
stated by the petitioner. The total non-application of mind on the factualpartposofition
Respondent Nos. 2, 3and 4 is having aserious far reaching consequences the
Petitioner compelling the petitioner to face unwanted financial upon the
Petitioner is compelled to put to bear the serious consequences arisngcriout
ses. ofThe
letter issued by the Respondent No. 4.
8. That, from the above submission, the petitioner has
demonstrated that, tha
petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case. It is submitted that the
will be put to suffer irreparable losses for no fault on her behalf particularly when petitioner
the petitioner is in a position todemonstrate this Honourable Court that the lettes
issued by the Respondent No. 4 is apparently illegal and improper and is
ungrounded and thus it is a fit case for grant relief by the Honourable Court.
9. That, the petitioner herein has approached this Honourable Court invoking its extra
ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the
petitioner are left with no other alternate or equally efficacious remedy under law.
10. That, the petitioner till the date of filing of the present writ petition has not
received any caveat.
11. That, the petitioner herein has not filed any other proceedings, being aggrieved by
the inaction on the part of the Respondent No. 2, 3, 4, in any other court including
the Honourable Apex Court and this Honourable Court.
12. Petitioner reserves her right to alter, amend, modify any contentions, submissions
and/or prayer clauses with the permission of this Hon'ble Court.
13. The cause of action arose in Mumbai and the Respondents have their offices in
Mumbai. Hence, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
Hence, this Petition.
 Modue-IW

YER:Itistherefore most respectfully

PRA to:
prayed that the Hon'ble Court may
he Writ Petition filed by
kindly be pleased
Prohibition be allowed. Petitioner by way of Writ of Mandamus and/or
Writ of
Respondents be directed to pay
interest to Petitioner. 2,34,135 towards alleged arrears with 12% p.a.
Respondents be directed to pay 12l% p.a. interest for the ate
since December, 2016. payment of pension
(À Respondents be directed to
calculate
the basic salary of ? 28,810 and payarrears towards salary and pension amount on
the
continue to pay pension on Basic Salary ofdifference
? 28,810.
with interest @ 12% p.a. and
(e) Respondents be directed to pay s lakhs towards
occurred to Petitioner.
mental agony and economic loss
() Cost of the Writ Petition be provided for.
Such other and further reliefs be granted in the interest of justice.
Dated this day of 20XX
PETITIONER

Advocate for Petitioners

VERIFICATION
retired, residing at Clo M.D.
I, Maya Goyal Wlo. Shankar Goyal, Aged - Adult, Occ:
Parle (East), Mumbai - 400057, the
Redkar, 5/82, Parleshwar Society, Shahaji, Raje Road, Vile
abovenamed, do hereby solemnly declare that whatever is stated in paragraphs 1to 42
Petitioner same to be true.
and Ibelieve the
are true and correct to my own knowledge
Solemnly declared at Mumbai PETITIONER
On this day of July, 20XX

Identified by me,

Advocate for the Petitioner