Punjab-Haryana High Court
Central Bank Of India & Ors vs V.K. Vohra on 26 July, 2016
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No.1249 of 2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 26, 2016
Central Bank of India and another ......Appellants
versus
V.K.Vohra .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DARSHAN SINGH.
***
Present: Mr.Deepak Jindal, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr.Praveen Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent-caveator.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
This letters patent appeal assails the order dated 22.12.2015 whereby learned Single Judge set-aside the communication issued by the appellant-Bank to deny pensionary benefits to the respondent and has further directed to re-consider his option, in accordance with the Circular dated 01.09.2010 and release the pensionary benefits subject to his eligibility.
[2] The facts are not in dispute. The respondent was working as Regional Manager with the appellant-Bank at Regional Office, Ambala. He was subjected to disciplinary action and punishment of 'compulsory retirement' under Regulation 4 (h) of the Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, was imposed vide For Subsequent orders see IOIN-CM-2606-LPA-2016 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 13-09-2016 21:07:33 ::: LPA No.1249 of 2016 (O&M) [2] order dated 26.12.2009. He filed departmental appeal which was declined vide order dated 14.08.2010 but with a specific stipulation that he would not be deprived of 'pensionary benefits'. Thereafter, a letter was issued to the respondent on 10.09.2010 granting him an opportunity for exercising option for pension. The respondent admittedly opted for the pension scheme. He also represented for adjustment of his retiral dues towards pension. As nothing was released to the respondent, he applied for some information under RTI and he came to know that his pension claim was turned down on the ground that he was not eligible to exercise 'another option for pension' since he was compulsorily retired by way of punishment. [3] It may also be noticed here that the appellant-Bank issued the Circular dated 01.09.2010 seeking yet another option from its employees to opt for pension scheme but the employees who were 'compulsorily retired' were denied the right to exercise such option. The said Circular, to the extent it deprived the compulsorily retired employees from availing the benefit of pension scheme, was challenged before the High Court of Andhara Pradesh in Writ Petition No.9069 of 2011 (Sreeram Ramamurthy versus Andhra Bank and others and the condition creating artificial classification amongst compulsorily retired employees on one hand and those who superannuated/voluntary retired on the other, was struck down. The judgment of learned Single Judge was upheld in intra-Court appeal and the Special Leave Petition preferred by Andhra Bank was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05.09.2014.
[4] The learned Single Judge has thus held and rightly so that in view of the above-cited judgment, the respondent could not be denied the right to exercise option for pension scheme, on the ground that he was a For Subsequent orders see IOIN-CM-2606-LPA-2016 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 13-09-2016 21:07:34 ::: LPA No.1249 of 2016 (O&M) [3] compulsorily retired official. As regard to the objection that it was a case of 'second option', the same has also been over-ruled for a valid reason that the respondent was expressly held entitled to pensionary benefits by the Appellate Authority and the Circular dated 01.09.2010 came to be issued much after the first option he had exercised. The 2nd opportunity given under that circular could not have been denied to the respondent.
For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order under appeal.
Dismissed.
[SURYA KANT]
JUDGE
July 26, 2016 [DARSHAN SINGH]
mohinder JUDGE
For Subsequent orders see IOIN-CM-2606-LPA-2016 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 13-09-2016 21:07:34 ::: LPA No.1249 of 2016 (O&M) [4] CM No.2605 of 2016 in LPA No.1249 of 2016
---
Central Bank of India and another versus V.K.Vohra
----
Present : Mr.Deepak Jindal, Advocate, for the applicant-appellants.
Mr.Praveen Gupta, Advocate, for the non-applicant-respondent.
*** For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and 159 days' delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
July 26, 2016 (DARSHAN SINGH)
mohinder JUDGE
For Subsequent orders see IOIN-CM-2606-LPA-2016 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 13-09-2016 21:07:34 :::