N.V. SUBBA RAO versus CORPORATION BANK AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 876 · Decided: 30-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
A 
N.V. SUBBA RAO 
v. 
CORPORATION BANK AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 30, 2006 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND T ARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
Pension and Gratuity-Dismissal order by employer revised to that of 
reversion to the post of clerk-Reinstatement on the post of Clerk as per order 
of High Court-Appeal to this Court seeking to treat the suspension period for 
reckoning pension and gratuity-Held: Employee entitled to the benefits of 
pension and gratuity from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement. 
D 
Appellant was suspended and consequently dismissed by the 
respondent-Bank. The dismissal order was modified to that.of reversion 
to the post ofclerk as agreed to by both the parties before High Court. 
On the judgment of High Court, appellant was reinstated as a Clerk. 
Present appeal is limit.ed to the question whether the appellant was 
E entitled to treat the suspension period for reckoning the pension and 
gratuity. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: When the order of dismissal is set aside and the appellant is 
reverted to the post of clerk he will be entitled to the service benefits 
including pension and gratuity available to the said post. It cannot be said 
that appellant will be entitled to the benefits only for the period from the 
date of suspension till the date of dismissal. The respondent-Bank is 
directed to treat the suspension period from the date of suspension till the 
G date when he was reinstated as a Clerk, for reckoning pension and gratuity 
only.1878-F-H; 879-A-B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5601 of2006. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 4.6.2002 of the High Court 
H 
876 
I' 
N.V. SUBBA RAO v. CORPORATION BANK [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 877 
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.A. No. 1354/2000. · 
A 
Roy Abraham, Ms. Seema Jain and Himinder Lal for the Appellant. 
Dhruv Mehta, Harshvardhan Jha, Yashraj Deora and Mannoj Mehta (for 
Mis. K.L. Mehta & Co.) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. 
Heard Mr. Roy Abraham, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. 
B 
Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents. We have perused order C 
impugned in this appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation 
Bank submitted before the High Court that the Management had decided to 
revert the appellant to the lowest post of clerk by revising impugned order 
of dismissal. For the said proposal, the counsel for the respondent-employee 
had also submitted before the High Court that the employee was agreeable D 
to accept the punishment of reversal to the lower post. In view of the 
submission made as above, the High Court has not gone into the merits of 
the case and disposed of the same on the said submissions. On the basis of 
the above order passed by the High Court, the appellant herein was reinstated 
as a clerk on 6.2.1997. The grievance of the appellant is that he was not 
given any benefit to the post in question namely the clerk from the date of E 
suspension up to the date of reinstatement. 
When the special leave petition came before this Court for admission, 
this Court on 19.12.2003, after condoning the delay, issued notice to the 
respondent-Bank. 
F 
On 3.4.2006, this Court passed the following order: 
"Let the counsel for the respondents take instructions as to whether 
the bank will be willing to treat the suspension period for 
reckoning pension and gratuity of the petitioner. We make it G 
clear that in all other respects we are not inclined to interfere 
with the impugned order." 
On 5,7,2006, after hearing the respective counsel, this Court passed the 
following order: 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
878 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
"Heard Mr. L.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner 
and Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents. 
On 3.4.2006, this Court passed the following order 
"Let the counsel for the respondents take instructions as to 
whether the bank will be willing to treat the suspension period 
for reckoning pension and gratuity of the petitioner. We make it 
clear that in all other respects we are not inclined to interfere with 
the impugned order." 
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, appearing for the respondent-Bank, 
placed before us a letter dated 30.6.2006 received by him in 
regard to the above direction. The letter is thus placed on record. 
It is seen from the letter that the competent authority of the 
respondent-Ban

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