Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Bank Of India Assistant General ... vs Vishwas on 12 November, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32049
1 WA-1798-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 12th OF NOVEMBER, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 1798 of 2024
STATE BANK OF INDIA ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AND
OTHERS
Versus
VISHWAS
Appearance:
Shri A.K.Sethi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sarthak
Hassannandani, counsel for the appellants.
Respondent in Person.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice The present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed seeking the following relief :
''In light of aforesaid submissions, we most humbly pray that the impugned order being illegal, inoperative, without jurisdiction contrary to the Hon'ble Apex Court's common order dated 26.07.2019 as also contrary to the facts on record and the settled law, deserves to be set aside and hence this Appeal may kindly be allowed after setting aside the impugned order dated 12.04.2024 and consequently impugned writ petition filed by the respondent (writ petitioner) may kindly be ordered to be dismissed with Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 14-11- 2024 16:37:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32049
2 WA-1798-2024 costs throughout. Besides, exorbitant cost of Rs. 25,000/- imposed without justification as also without jurisdiction on appellants/Bank may kindly bet set aside.''
02. The present appeal has been filed on the ground that the impugned order dated 12.04.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 6709 of 2021 is contrary as also over and above the conclusion already held in paragraph 12 of the order dated 16.01.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No. 401 of 2023 whereby the Division Bench has held that as no relief for payment of pension is sought in the writ petition, the learned Writ Court's direction for payment of pension is beyond the relief prayed for.
03. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellants/bank submitted that even at the time when impugned order was passed for payment of other types of pension, no relief existed or was added in the writ petition, therefore the direction passed in the impugned order for payment of even other type of pension is beyond jurisdiction and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
04. It is further submitted that the learned Writ Court has erroneously held that even if no pension is sought for in the relief clause, yet respondent is entitled for pension and in support of the foregoing, in paragraph 10 of the impugned order it is held that although, the word 'pension' is not written in the relief clause, but as the writ petition has been filed for quashment of the appellant/Bank's order dated 24.09.2019, which means that petition is filed to get the benefit of pension. Further, in paragraph 11, it is held that paragraphs
- 3, 4 and 5 of the appellants' reply reveal that Bank is aware about filing of the petition to get pension, therefore it cannot be argued that no relief is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 14-11- 2024 16:37:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32049 3 WA-1798-2024 prayed for payment of pension.
05. It is further submitted that although, it was onus of respondent/writ petitioner to make appropriate prayer in the relief clause of the writ petition and his failure cannot be apportioned to the bank, but learned Writ Court has escaped to observe that in the second round of hearing, respondent had filed I.A.No. 685 of 2024 on 23.01.2024, thereby seeking amendment in petition to add relief of pension, which however, does not appear to have been considered by the learned Writ Court. As the foregoing conclusions arrived at by the learned Writ Court do not cure the lacuna of making specific relief for payment of pension in the relief clause of prescribed format of writ petition, the said conclusions / decisions held in the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
06. It is further submitted that in paragraph 14 of the impugned order, it is erroneously held that respondent is not required to file SLP against bank's order dated 24.09.2019 as bank's said order has given a fresh cause of action. In this regard, it is submitted that as the bank's said letter is in direct response to the Apex Court's order dated 26.07.2019, a grievance caused had to be agitated before the Apex Court and the writ petition is not maintainable for the said purpose. Moreover, the appellant/bank had examined the case of the respondent as per the State Bank of Indore (Employees') Pension Regulation, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Pension Regulation') in each and every clause and after due and detailed consideration, a speaking order dated 24.09.2019 was passed by the appellant/bank informing that the terminal dues as payable to the respondent have been paid and that he is not Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 14-11- 2024 16:37:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32049 4 WA-1798-2024 entitled for pension.
07. It is also contended that the order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the appellant being in accordance and in compliance of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same should not have been quashed by the impugned order because in paragraph 7 of the impugned order, it is erroneously held that the bank's objection about maintainability of the petition for the purpose of interpretation of Apex Court's order was negated and writ petition was allowed vide earlier order dated 21.02.2023 and which was challenged by the bank in earlier Writ Appeal No. 401 of 2023.
08. In this regard, learned Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that as the earlier order dated 21.02.2023 and also the impugned order dated 12.04.2024 reveals that the learned Writ Court has not decided the bank's objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition for the purpose of interpretation of Apex Court's order, apparently, the learned Writ Court has committed an error on the face of the record in holding that it has negated the bank's said objection while allowing the writ petition vide the earlier order dated 21.02.2023.
09. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants further submitted that the learned Writ Court has committed grave error of law in as much as without adverting to its earlier order dated 21.02.2023 to pay 'Superannuation Pension' to the writ petitioner/respondent as per Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulation, it has given fresh direction to pay pension to writ petitioner/respondent as per Regulation 32 of the Pension Regulation. However, for want of any direction in the impugned order regarding payment Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 14-11- 2024 16:37:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32049 5 WA-1798-2024 of superannuation pension, as given in earlier order, the appellant/bank stands discharged of its obligation to comply with the direction to pay superannuation pension to the respondent as provided in Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulation. Thus, the present impugned order deserves to be set aside.
10. The respondent herein while working as Audit Assistant at the erstwhile State Bank of Indore was served with a charge sheet dated 15.10.1997 on the allegations that he misbehaved with the Head Cashier and one customer. Respondent denied the charges but the appellant/bank decided to conduct Departmental Enquiry against him. Based on the enquiry report, he was dismissed from service without any pensionary benefits.
11. Being aggrieved, respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as the CGIT/LC). The CGIT/LC vide award dated 30.01.2015 held that the termination was not legal and justified and modified it to the punishment of compulsory retirement.
12. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellants/bank as well as the respondent herein, both approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 2625 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 1040 of 2016, respectively. Vide order dated 24.04.2017, both the writ petitions were decided and the matter was remanded back to the CGIT/LC to reconsider as to which other punishment can be imposed to make him eligible to get pensionary benefits.
13. The aforesaid order of the Division Bench of this Court was challenged by the appellants before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 14-11- 2024 16:37:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32049 6 WA-1798-2024 Civil Appeals No. 5876-5877 of 2019. The said civil appeals were disposed of on 26.07.2019 with the direction that the respondent would be paid all the retiral benefits, as admissible and that he would be paid pension, if admissible, on the basis of the period served by him with the bank assuming he would superannuate after such a period of service. The said directions were to be complied with within eight weeks from the date of passing of the aforesaid order.
14. After the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, appellant/bank considered the case of respondent for grant of pension and vide order dated 24.09.2019 decided to give contributory provident fund amounting to Rs. 30,014/- and Gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,17,945/- and denied the pension under provision of the Pension Regulation on the ground that he did not attain the age of superannuation, hence, not entitled for superannuation pension. It was also held that to get pension on account of the voluntary retirement, respondent did not complete 20 years of qualifying service and in terms of Regulation 33, he would not be entitled to get pension under this regulation. Being aggrieved, respondent filed the writ petition before the Writ Court.
15. The case of appellants before the Writ Court was that the respondent is seeking an interpretation of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for which he is required to approach the Supreme Court. The above contention was negated and the Writ Petition was allowed on merit by the Writ Court, which the appellants challenged before the Division Bench of this High Court which held that before entering into merit Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 14-11- 2024 16:37:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32049 7 WA-1798-2024 of the case the Writ Court ought to have decided the issue of maintainability of the Writ Petition. The Division Bench did not examine the merit of the case.
16. The relevant paragraphs of the order passed by the Writ Appellate Court dated 16.01.2024 are reproduced as under:-
''10. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is apparent that the writ petition was decided finally without adverting to the preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the petition and without hearing the appellant/bank.
11. Moreso, in the relief clause, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/bank there is no mention of a grant of pension in the relief clause in the writ petition filed by the respondent. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, the same is reproduced below:
''सहायता-
1. माननीय यायालय से िनवेदन है क यािचकाकता को माह अ ैल 1999 से आज दनांक तक का वेतन सभी लाभ, भ े, अवकाश नगद करण, पी.एफ., ेचुइट , बक एवं कमचार का अंशदान एवं बक का अंशदान दोन का भुगतान याथ गण से दलवाये जाने व दनांक 24.09.19 का प िनर त कर यािचका वीकार कर कये जाने क कृ पा कर।
2. यािचकाकता को यािचका का संपूण यय यथ गण से दलाये जाने क कृ पा कर।
3. अ य कोई सहायता जो माननीय यायालय याय हत म उिचत समझे वह भी दलवाई जावे।
4. यािचकाकता क यािचका स यय वीकार क जावे।''
12. From a careful reading of relief no.1, it is apparent that respondent prayed that he be paid salary from April 1999 till the date of filing of petition and other benefits, leave encashment, PF, Gratuity including employee and employer's contribution. However, there is no mention of grant of pension in the relief clause whereas the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition had directed the appellant/bank to pay the pension w.e.f.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 14-11- 2024 16:37:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32049 8 WA-1798-2024 the date of leaving the service along with interest @ 9% p.a., which is beyond the reliefs sought by the respondent. Even otherwise, learned Single Judge ought to have decided the preliminary objection raised by the appellant/bank about maintainability of the petition first and then has to dwell upon deciding other issues, which has not been done in the case in hand.
13. With regard to deciding preliminary objections first, this Court is supported in its view by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Ranbir Singh Rathaur and Others reported in (2006) 11 SCC 696 has held thus:
42. In any event we feel that the High Court's approach is clearly erroneous. The present appellants in the counter affidavit filed had raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the writ petitions and had requested the High Court to grant further opportunity if the necessity so arises to file a detailed counter affidavit after the preliminary objections were decided. The High Court in fact in one of the orders clearly indicated that the preliminary objections were to be decided first.
14. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others (supra), that preliminary objection raised by the appellant/bank as regards maintainability of petition has not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
15. Accordingly, the order dated 21.02.2023 passed in W.P. No. 6709/2021 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for hearing the case on the question of maintainability as well as merits and decide the same after hearing both parties in accordance with the law as expeditiously as possible.''
17. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, learned Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 14-11- 2024 16:37:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32049 9 WA-1798-2024 Writ Court observed that so far as the first objection of the appellants that the respondent did not claim the pension in the writ petition and Writ Court has granted the relief is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.07.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.5876 of 2018 directed the appellants to pay the pension, if admissible, on the basis of period served by him with the bank assuming he would be superannuated after such a period of service. After the aforesaid order, respondent submitted a representation to appellants and the same was rejected vide order impugned dated 24.09.2019, which the respondent has challenged by way of writ petition.
18. The learned Writ Court further observed that the entire facts and grounds pleaded in the petition only relates to the denial of pension to respondent, apart from other claim payments of PF, leave encashment, gratuity bank & employee contribution. In the relief clause, though the word 'pension' is not written, but respondent sought quashment of the impugned order dated 24.09.2019, meaning thereby that respondent filed the petition to get pension.
19. The learned Writ Court further observed that the Division Bench of this Court in an earlier round, remanded the matter to CGIT to consider the nature of punishment to be awarded to respondent so that he may get the pension. The only dispute which remains to be adjudicated before the Writ Court between the parties was only about the pension, as observed by the Writ Court.
20. The case of appellants as narrated in para-wise reply to the writ petition disputed the claim of the respondent for grant of pension, which is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 14-11- 2024 16:37:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32049 10 WA-1798-2024 evident from paragraphs - 3, 4 and 5 of their reply. Thus, appellants were aware that the Writ Petition is filed by respondent only to get a pension, then they could not have argued before the Division Bench that respondent did not claim pension in the memo of Writ Petition. Therefore, only in order to get the Writ Court's order set aside, this point was deliberately raised in the writ appeal for the first time. Had this point been raised before the Writ Court, appellants would have been confronted with memo of petition, impugned order and the pleadings in their return or the respondent could have been given an opportunity to amend the relief clause of the petition.
21. It is further observed by the learned Single Judge that so far as the second objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, a para-wise reply was filed by appellants and additionally raised the issue of maintainability in paragraph - 6 which is reproduced below:-
"6. (i) That, in the present petition, the petitioner has sought this Hon'ble Court to interpret the Apex Court's said order dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure-P/4) and pass the necessary order based on such interpretation of this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) That, in humble submissions of the respondent bank the writ jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be invoked by the petitioner for the purpose of interpretation of Hon'ble Apex Court's order dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure-P/4) and therefore, this petition is otherwise also not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed with appropriate cost."
[Emphasis Supplied]
22. It is pertinent to mention here that the Officer Incharge of the appellants, Shri Abhinav Joshi, Chief Manager (HR) filed an application seeking a decision on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition without signature of Shri R.C.Singhal, Advocate. Appellants pleaded that it is apprehended that in case the Writ Court passes an order based on its interpretation of the Supreme Court's order dated 26.07.2019, it would give Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 14-11- 2024 16:37:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32049 11 WA-1798-2024 rise to multiple litigation by way of writ appeal and by way of SLP, therefore, it would be better to direct the respondent to directly approach the Apex Court in case he is aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2019. Paragraph
- 7 of the said application is reproduced below:-
"7. That, it is also apprehended that in case this Hon'ble Court is pleased to pass any order based on its own interpretation about Apex Court's said order dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure-P/4), it would give rise to multiple litigation as aggrieved party will have to pass through the porcess of writ appeal and thereafter to approach the Apex Court, whereas the petitioner has direct recourse to approach Hon'ble Apex Court if he is aggrieved by the bank's said letter dated 24.09.2019 (Annexure-P/1)."
[Emphasis Supplied]
23. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge opined that the aforesaid contention is absolutely baseless because the Hon'ble Supreme Court only directed the appellants to examine the right of the respondent to get pension and vide order dated 26.07.2019, appellants rejected the claim of respondent which gave him a fresh cause of action for challenging the aforesaid impugned order before the Writ Court. Thus, there was no need to approach the Supreme Court directly by way of SLP to challenge the validity of the impugned order passed by appellants. It is further observed by the learned Single Judge that on the basis of wrong advise, frivolous objection has been raised about maintainability of the writ petition. Even otherwise, the said point was argued by Shri R.C.Singhal, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants before arguing on merit and it was specifically rejected and thereafter the matter was heard and decided on merit. Thus, the said objection is not tenable. The learned Single Judge rightly opined that the writ petition is very much maintainable as the appellants rejected the claim of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 14-11- 2024 16:37:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32049 12 WA-1798-2024 pension vide order dated 24.09.2019 which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge.
24. It is not in dispute that appellants again filed a para-wise reply to the writ petition to justify the impugned order dated 24.04.2019. It is stated by the appellants that under the Pension Regulation, there are six types of pension admissible to the employee and respondent's case does not fall under any of the Regulations.
25. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned CGIT/LC, vide award dated 30.01.2015 held that the action of management of Assistant Manager, State Bank of India, Indore in dismissing the services of the respondent is not legal and justified. The punishment of dismissal was modified to compulsory retirement. Thereafter, respondent herein & appellant/Bank both preferred writ petitions before this Court. In both the writ petitions, the issue of entitlement of pension payable to the respondent was considered in paragraphs - 12, 13 & 14 of the order dated 24.04.2017. The Division Bench was also of the opinion that if the punishment of compulsory retirement is imposed it would not entitle the workman to pension unless he was entitled for pension upon superannuation. Therefore, the order of compulsory retirement may not entitle him to the benefit of the pension.
26. Learned Writ Court has observed that the intention of the CGIT/LC was in favour of respondent to grant the pensionary benefit by substituting the punishment. Therefore, the order of the CGIT/LC was set aside and the matter was remitted to consider as to which other punishment Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 14-11- 2024 16:37:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32049 13 WA-1798-2024 can be imposed so as to make the workman i.e. the respondent eligible for pensionary benefits or such other punishment, which the Tribunal may consider appropriate in the facts of the case, meaning thereby that the only relief No.10(2) was modified and relief No.10(1) was maintained by this Court.
27. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the civil appeal by observing that the respondent will be paid all the retiral benefits if admissible. He would be paid a pension, if admissible, on the basis of the period served by him with the Bank assuming that he would be superannuated after such period of service. Therefore, the date April 2019 has been treated as the date of superannuation of the respondent by the Apex Court. After rendering 14 years, 08 months & 06 days for service, the respondent had been treated as superannuated.
28. The learned Writ Court has gone through Regulation 14 of the State Bank of Indore (Employees') Pension Regulation 1995 and as per the said Regulation an employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service in the Bank on the date of his retirement or/on the date he is deemed to have retired, shall qualify for pension. Therefore, after rendering ten years of service, respondent became qualified for pension.
29. CHAPTER - V prescribes for Classes of Pension which is reproduced below:-
CHAPTER - V "SUPERANNUATION PENSION: -
28. Superannuation pension shall be granted to an employee who has retired on his attaining the age of superannuation specified in the Service Regulations or settlements.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 14-11- 2024 16:37:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32049 14 WA-1798-2024
29. PENSION ON VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT : -
(1) On or after the 1st day of November, 1993 at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service he may by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the competes:
authority retire from service;
Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who is on deputation or on study leave abroad unless after having been transferred or having returned to India he has resumed charge of the post in India and has served for a period of not less than one year; Provided farther that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking or company or institution, or body, whether incorporated or not to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement:
Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who is deemed to have retired in accordance with clause (1) of regulation 2. (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under subregulation (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority :
Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.
(3) (a) An employee referred to in sub-regulation (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons therefor;
(b) On receipt of a request under clause (a), the appointing authority may, subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (2) consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative Inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the notice of three months. (4) An employee, who has elected to retire under this regulation and has given necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be.
precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority ; Provided that the request for such withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement.
(5) The qualifying, service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this regulation shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying, service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty - three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation.
(6) The pension of an employee retiring under this regulation shall be based on the average emoluments as defined under clause (d) of regulation 2 of these regulations and the increase, no exceeding five years in his qualifying service, shall not entitle him to any notional fixation of pay for the purpose of calculating his pension.
30. INVALID PENSION: -
(1) Pension-(1) Invalid pension may he granted to an employee who-- (1) has rendered minimum ten years of service; and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 14-11- 2024 16:37:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32049 15 WA-1798-2024 (2) retires from the service, on or after the 1st day of November 1993 on account of any bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitates him for the service.
(2) An employee applying for an invalid pension shall submit a medical certificate of incapacity from a medical officer approved by the Bank (3) Where the Medical Officer approved by the Bank has declared the employee fit for further service of less laborious character than the which he had been doing, he should, provided he is willing to the so employed be employed on lower post and if there be no means of employing him even on a lower post, he may be admitted to invalid pension. (4) No medial certificate of Incapacity for service may be accepted unless the applicant obtains the medical certificate on production of a letter to show that the Competent Authority is aware of the intention of the applicant to appear before the medical officer approved by the Bank. (5) The medical officer approved by the Bank shall also be supplied by the Competent Authority under whom the applicant is employed with a statement of what appears from official records to be the age of the applicant.
31. COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCE : -
(1) An employee, who is dismissed or removed on terminated from service, shall forfeit his pension.
Provided that the authority higher than the authority competent to dismiss or remove on terminate him from service may, if--
(i) such dismissal removal or termination is on or after the 1st day of "November, 1993; and
(ii) the case is deserving of special consideration sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the pension which would have been admissible to him on the basis of the qualifying service rendered upto the date of is dismissal, removal or termination. (2) The Compassionate Allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub- regulation ft) shall not be less than the amount of minimum pension payable under regulation 36 of these regulation.
32. PREMATURE RETIREMENT PENSION : -
Premature Retirement on may be granted to an employee who -
a) has rendered minimum ten years of service ;
b) retires from service on account of orders of the Bank to retire prematurely in the public interest or for any other reason specified in service regulations or settlement, if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date.
33. COMPULSORY RETIREMENT PENSION : -
(i) An employee compulsory retired from service as a penalty on or after 1st day of November, 1993 in terms of Service Regulations or Settlement by the authority higher than the authority competent to impose such penalty may be granted pension at a rate not less than two-thirds and not more than full pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement of otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date.
(ii) Whenever the competent Authority passes an order (whether original appellate or in exercise of power of review) awarding pension at a rate less Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 14-11- 2024 16:37:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32049 16 WA-1798-2024 than the full pension admissible under these, regulations., the Board of Directors or its Executive Committee shall be consulted before such order is passed.
1. (iii) A pension granted or awarded under sub-regulation (1) or, as the case may be, under sub-regulation (2), shall not be less than the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy five per mensen.
34. PAYMENT OF PENSION OR FAMILY PENSION IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEES WHO RETIRED OR DIED BETWEEN 1.1.1986 TO 31.10.1993 : -
(1) Employees who have retired from the service of the Bank between the 1st day of January, 1986 and the 31st day of October, 1993 shall be eligible for pension with effect from the 1st day of November 1993. (2) The family of a deceased employee governed by the provisions contained in sub-regulation (7) of regulation 3 shall be eligible for family pension with effect from the 1st day of November 1993."
[Emphasis Supplied]
30. A perusal of the Regulation shows that Regulation 28 provides for Superannuation Pension after the age of superannuation, however Regulation 29 prescribes for pension on voluntary retirement after completion of 20 years of qualifying service. Regulation 30 prescribes for invalid pension which is admissible after rendering ten years of service, Regulation 31 deals with the compassionate allowances to those employees who are dismissed or removed or terminated from service but as per proviso the authority may sanction compassionate allowance not exceeding two-third of the pension which would have been admissible to him on the basis of qualifying service. Regulation 32 deals with premature retirement pension, for which also the minimum service is ten years and Regulation 33 deals with the compulsory retirement pension payable to the employee who compulsory retired from service as a penalty and shall be entitled for minimum two-third of the pension.
31. It is not in dispute that respondent is qualified for the pensionable Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 14-11- 2024 16:37:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32049 17 WA-1798-2024 service after serving more than ten years in the appellant/Bank therefore, under any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that he is not entitled for pension.
32. The only issue to be considered by the Writ Court was that the respondent falls under which class of pension. Only under Regulations 30, 31, 32 & 33, the pension is payable after completion of 10 years of service. The order of compulsory retirement passed by the CGIT/LC was set aside and the matter was remanded back. The order of termination had already been held illegal by the CGIT, therefore, the respondent will not be treated as a terminated employee. It is only a case of premature retirement under Regulation 32 which says that premature retirement may be granted to an employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service; and retires from service on account of an order from the bank to retire prematurely for public interest or any other reasons specified in service regulations or settlement, if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date. Accordingly, the Writ Court rightly held that the case of the respondent falls under Regulation 32. The appellants in the impugned order have only considered the case of the respondent under Regulations 28, 29 & 33 but did not consider other regulations of CHAPTER - V.
33. In view of the above discussions and settled provisions of the Regulation, we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Writ Court. Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
34. Consequently, the interim order passed by this Court vide order Signature Not Verified Signed by: SREEVIDYA Signing time: 14-11- 2024 16:37:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32049 18 WA-1798-2024 dated 23.08.2024 stands vacated. It is made clear that all the payments due to respondent along with interest as directed by the learned Single Judge shall be paid within a period of four weeks from today failing which the appellants shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the delayed payment.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
vidya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 14-11-
2024 16:37:12