ISSAC T M versus THE IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 551 · Decided: 12-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
551
ISSAC T M
v.
THE IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.5430 of 2019)
JULY 12, 2019
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Service Law – State Co-operative Bank and District Co-
operative Bank Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme 2005 –
First respondent-co-operative bank decided to implement the 2005
Pension Scheme, formulated by the Government of Kerala, for the
employees retiring on or after 1st May, 2005 – Disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the appellant, employee of the Bank
– Appellant retired on 31 Jan. 2007 – His pension was held up –
Bank called upon the appellant to indicate his willingness to join
the Pension Scheme – Appellant indicated his willingness and was
enrolled in the Pension Scheme – Grievance of the appellant that,
despite him having conveyed his willingness to join the Pension
Scheme, the pension records were not forwarded by the Bank to the
second respondent-Board which administers the Pension Scheme –
Committee constituted by the Bank to look into the allegations
levelled against the appellant, opined that there was no merit in the
allegations and he was entitled to his terminal dues including
pension – However, disbursement of the retiral dues was being held
up – High Court dismissed appellant’s writ petition inter alia seeking
sanction of his pensionary dues w.e.f  1st  February, 2007– On
appeal, held: Eligibility of the appellant to pension under the Pension
Scheme is not in dispute – Pension Scheme stipulates that
superannuation pension shall commence from the beginning of the
month succeeding the month in which the employee retires from
service after attaining the age of superannuation  – Appellant is
entitled to pension w.e.f  1st  February, 2007 – Bank did not forward
the pension papers to the Board purportedly because of the
disciplinary proceedings – It was only after the appellant was
exonerated that he was finally intimated of the remittance which
was required to be made, which the appellant did on the same day –
[2019]  10 S.C.R. 551
   551
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
552
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
No reason for the Bank to hold up the disbursal of the pensionary
dues at the material time by not forwarding all the connected papers
and information to the Board – Entitlement of the appellant cannot
be denied – Ordered accordingly – Impugned judgment set aside.
The first respondent-co-operative bank decided to
implement the State Co-operative Bank and District Co-operative
Bank Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme 2005,
formulated by the Government of Kerala for the employees of
the State Co-operative Bank and District Co-operative banks,
for its employees retiring on or after 1st  May 2005. The appellant
was an employee of the bank in the State of Kerala, who entered
service in 1978 and rendered nearly 29 years of service before
attaining the age of superannuation on 31st January, 2007.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant and
payment of his pension was held up. The bank in March 2007
called upon the appellant to indicate his willingness to join the
Pension Scheme. The appellant indicated his willingness. As per
the appellant, the pension records of the appellant were not
forwarded by the Bank to the Board which administers the
Pension Scheme. The Bank constituted a Sub-Committee to look
into the allegations levelled against the appellant. The Committee
opined that there was no merit in the allegations against the
appellant and he was entitled to his terminal dues including
pension. However, the disbursement of the retiral dues was being
held up. The appellant instituted writ petition before the High
Court seeking sanction of his pensionary dues w.e.f   1st  February,
2007 and the payment of arrears together with interest until
1st  November, 2013, when eventually the pensionary dues were
paid. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The eligibility of the appellant to pension under
the State Co-operative Bank and District Co-operative Bank
Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme 2005  is not in dispute.
The appellant is an employee who retired from service after 31
March 2005 and is eligible under para 5(1)(i) of the Pension
Scheme. Para 19 of the Pension Scheme stipulates that
superannuation pension shall commence from the beginning of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
553
the month succeeding the month in which the employee retires
from service after attain

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.