The Delhi High Court has awarded ₹50,000 compensation to a former Punjab & Sind Bank manager who risked his life to foil an armed robbery at the bank’s Najafgarh branch nearly 28 years ago, observing that his act of courage was wrongly trivialised by the bank as a mere discharge of duty.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna also awarded him ₹2 lakh towards litigation costs and directed the Bank to pay the amounts with 12 per cent compounded annual interest on the ₹50,000 compensation from December 1998, the date of the robbery.

The court’s September 9 verdict came on a petition filed in 2005 by Surjit Singh, who was posted as Senior Manager at the Bank’s Roshan Pura, Najafgarh branch when five armed robbers entered the bank on December 28, 1998. The robbers threatened the staff and customers and looted cash kept at the branch. The court noted that around ₹40 lakh was available in cash at the counter and in the chest at the time.

Mr. Singh, who was surrounded by the robbers in his cabin, tried to call for help. One of the robbers broke the glass pane of his cabin and pointed a revolver at him. Despite the threat to his life, Mr. Singh pressed the emergency alarm, causing the robbers to panic and attempt to flee. He then pushed the door to obstruct their escape, resulting in the cash bag getting stuck and currency bundles spilling onto the floor. The robbers ultimately escaped with only ₹75,000.

The Court rejected the bank’s contention that Mr. Singh had merely performed his duty as branch manager and that pressing the alarm could not be regarded as an act of bravery. It said that two security guards had surrendered their weapons and other bank officials had complied with the robbers’ demands, whereas Mr. Singh had acted despite two guns being pointed at him.

“Such act of bravery and presence of mind, has ironically been termed by the Bank, as a part of his duty,” the Court observed, calling the bank’s stand a trivialisation of his “extraordinary and exemplary courage”.

The court referred to the Government of India guidelines dated October 14, 1991, which provide for a cash reward of up to ₹50,000 for bank employees and members of the public who actively resist bank robberies and terrorist attacks on Banks. The guidelines also permit an out-of-turn promotion for eligible bank employees.

Justice Krishna held that pressing the emergency alarm and subsequently blocking the door constituted “active resistance” to the robbery within the meaning of the guidelines and could not be characterised as routine discharge of duty.

The Delhi High Court has held that street vendors holding provisional Certificates of Vending (CoVs) cannot claim a right to fixed vending sites.

A Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan said the demand for fixed vending sites under provisional CoVs could not be permitted, noting that the certificates were subject to specific terms and conditions governing street vending.

The court was hearing a petition filed by 42 persons who claimed to have provisional CoVs and sought directions to the authorities to indicate the exact sites where they were permitted to vend.

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), however, stated that the petitioners were, at best, mobile vendors and did not have any identified stationary sites that could be allotted to them.

The Court also took note of photographs placed on record and observed that the petitioners were not vending as mobile vendors but were operating stationary shops. It said they had encroached upon footpaths and walking areas and were also causing traffic congestion.

Also Read : Clean and vendor-free: Delhi’s makeover seems to have no room for the poor

The court, in its August 3 order, further observed that the vending sites were not being maintained in a clean and hygienic manner.

The court noted that the provisional CoVs carried conditions requiring vendors to adhere to the selling time and zone fixed by the Town Vending Committee, ensure that pedestrian and traffic movement was not obstructed, and refrain from encroachment.

It directed the MCD to verify whether all 42 petitioners actually possessed provisional CoVs. Those found to have valid provisional CoVs would be allowed to vend as mobile vendors, subject to the conditions attached to their certificates.

The court said any petitioner or vendor who did not have a provisional CoV or failed to comply with the prescribed conditions would be liable to be removed by the MCD.