NARENDRA KUMAR versus CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SYNDICATE BANK & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 30-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
                       NARENDRA KUMAR
v
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SYNDICATE BANK & ORS.
 (Civil Appeal No. 4489 of 2019)
APRIL 30, 2019
             [S.A. BOBDE,  SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND
      INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Service Law: Pension – Qualifying period for pension –
Interruption in service – Appellant working as law officer in
respondent-bank (parent department) went on deputation to the Debt
Recovery Tribunal (DRT) – During the period of deputation, he
applied for the post of Presiding Officer at DRT – Respondent-
bank forwarded ‘No Objection Certificate’ for consideration of
appellant for the said post –  Appellant was selected – Copy of
letter of appointment was endorsed to the respondent-bank –
Appellant was asked to take charge – Appellant requested the
respondent-bank for permission to take over the charge of the said
new post but bank sent no response to his letter – DRT released the
appellant and then he took over charge as Presiding officer – After
eleven months, respondent-bank asked the appellant to resign from
the service of bank – After some communications, appellant tendered
his resignation which was accepted by the respondent-bank and he
was relieved – Thereafter appellant was informed that only a sum
of Rs.2.41 lacs was payable to him on the basis of total service of
18 years and 10 months, denying him pensionary benefits by
forfeiting the service of 9 years – Appellant filed writ petition before
High Court which was dismissed on the ground that he was not
entitled to pension in view of non-compliance of clause 22(2) of the
Pension Regulations as he was required to join back the services of
the bank on being relieved from the DRT but he straight away joined
the post of Presiding officer and, therefore, the period after DRT
relieved him was treated as abandonment of service – On appeal,
held: The appellant was on deputation when he was so appointed
and took over the new post – Before applying for the post of
Presiding officer, DRT, a ‘No Objection Certificate’ was obtained
from the respondent-bank – The period of deputation of the appellant
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 1
     1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
was extended keeping in mind the fact that he had already applied
for the post and his application was pending consideration – The
fact that he did not report back to the bank for a couple of days;
got himself relieved and then joined the post cannot be categorized
as ‘interruption in service’ – He had already addressed a
communication to respondent-bank which elicited no response for
11 months – Even the parent Ministry of respondent-bank, brought
to the notice of the bank the inappropriateness of not extending the
benefits – Impugned decisions of the respondent bank were wholly
unjustified – Syndicate Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  The appellant was on deputation from time to time.
It was during the extended period that the appellant was issued
the appointment letter. It is a hyper technical view to take that
the appellant ought to have joined the respondent No.1 Bank for
a couple of days, got himself relieved and then joined the office
of the Presiding Officer, DRT.  It, thus, appears to be more of an
ego issue rather than any case of service impropriety or illegality.
The appellant even took the precaution to write a letter to
respondent No.1 Bank for permission to take over charge of the
new post of Presiding Officer which post he had to occupy within
a period of one month.  This letter received no response for 11
months, a clear laxity on the part of the respondent No.1 Bank.
The appellant, thus, joined the post of the Presiding Officer.  No
shadow whatsoever can be cast over the conduct of the appellant
in this behalf.  There was no interruption of service of the Bank
employee as would cause such forfeiture.  The appellant was on
deputation when he was so appointed and took over the new post.
The fact that he did not report back to the Bank for a couple of
days, got himself relieved and then joined the post cannot be
categorized as ‘interruption in service’ by any stretch of
imagination. [Paras 14, 15] [8-D-G; 9-A-B]
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.4489
of 2019
From the Judgment and Order  dated  31.03.2017 of the High
Court at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition Service Bench
No. 947 of 2010
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
Raju Ramchandran, Sr. Adv., Ms. Amita Sehgal, Satish Mathur,
Pawan, Ms. Puj

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