Smt.Sharmila Ravi Kumar, vs Chairman And M.D., A.P. Bank, on 28 February, 2020
15. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the
impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be
sustained and it is set aside accordingly. The appeal is
allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of
this case, there shall be no orders as to costs.
18 The learned counsel for the respondent Bank has relied
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court held
between Andhra Bank vs. R. Uma Maheswari {W.A.No.3789
of 2019 against W.P.No.37764 of 2004 dated 21.11.2019}.
In the case cited supra, the leave pertains to the period after
1995 i.e. the Regulations came into effect and the competent
authority had occasion to examine the leave and
communicated to the employee that the said leave will not be
considered for extending the benefit of pension and his leave
leads to disqualification for claiming pension. The facts of the
above case are different to the facts of the case on hand and
hence the said judgment is not applicable.
18
19 In the case on hand, the respondent Bank on
30.03.2001 had issued a certificate indicating that the
petitioner has put in 15 ½ years of service as a clerk and is
entitled to pension as per eligibility.
20 In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view
that the petitioner is entitled to pension and the impugned
proceedings dated 01.09.2001 is liable to be set aside.
21 In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside
the order of the second respondent in Lr.No.666/3/P/152,
dated 01.09.2001 and accordingly rule nisi is made absolute.
The respondents are directed to pay pension to the petitioner
as per the procedure within a period of eight (8) weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order together with
interest @ 6% p.a. from the due date. No order as to costs.
22 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,
shall stand closed.