LexSYNDICATE BANK, BANGALORE versus SATYA SRINATH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
SYNDICATE BANK, BANGALORE
r
v.
..
SA TY A SRINA TH
APRIL 17, 2007
B
[AK MA THUR AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]
Syndicate Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995-Regulation
>- -
29-Pension-Entitlement of-To employees in service during specified
c
period-However, those voluntarily retired or deemed to have voluntarily
retired not eligible-Employee unathorisedly absent from work, explanation
not being satisfactory, deemed to have voluntarily retired from service-
Employee seeking pension, rejected by Single Judge of High Court, however,
granted by Division Bench-Correctness of-Held: Compulsory retirement/
premature retirement imposed by the Bank upon the employee-Not a case
D of voluntary retirement or premature retirement-Also employee has put in
20 years of service and had taken leave on medical ground which was denied
to her-Thus, employee entitled to pension.
' .
,
Respondent-employee remained unauthorisedly absent from work.
E
Appellant-bank issued notice to the respondent to explain her absence.
Respondent explained that due to illness she could not report for duty; it was
supported by medical certificate. Not being satisfied with the explanation,
appellant informed the respondent that she was deemed to have voluntary
retired from service from 23.12.1992. Aggrieved respondent filed writ petition
for re-instatement in service which was dismissed. Meanwhile Syndicate Bank
F (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 ca~J into force. Bank issued a
circular dated 4.11.1995 that the Regulatjifi"S were applicable to those who
,..-,
were in service of Bank on or after 01.01.1986 but had retired before
29.09.1995. However, the employees who had voluntary retired or deemed to
have voluntarily retired between 01.01.1986 and 31.10.1993 were not eligible
for pension under the Regulations. The circular also provided that ex-
G employees who had not exercised their option for pension under the Regulation
could exercise their option. Respondent was in service since 07.04.1969 and
had retired from 22.12.1992. Respondent applied for pension scheme but was
{ . ....
rejected. Respondent then filed writ petition. Single Judge of High Court
dismissed the petition holding that the respondent was not eligible for pension.
H
242
SYNDICATEBANK,BANGALOREv.SATYASRINATH
243
However, Division Bench of High Court set aside the order and held that the A
~
"\
respondent was entitled to pension as per the Regulations. Hence the present
appeal
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The respondent submitted her explanation and sought B
extension of time on medical ground. But the management of the Bank instead
of considering the matter sympathetically ordered for premature retirement
under the purported exercise of Clause 17(a). It is not the case that she had
voluntarily retired but it is a case where the bank has retired her as a
measure of punishment because they were not satisfied with her explanation. c
Therefore, it is not a case which can be covered by the clarification issued by
the Bank and it cannot be deemed that she has voluntarily retired. The
contingency in the instant case is not covered by the Circular dated 4.11.1995.
In Clause 17 (a) a person who deliberately does not join the office and leaves
the office without any satisfactory explanation, then it is open for the
management to resort to Clause 17(a). But in the instant case, the facts are D
very glarin that incumbent has put in 20 years of service and unfortunately
she fell sick and sought for extension of leave on medical ground, that was
't
denied to her. Therefore, it is not the case of the abandoned service or she did
not send any reply to the notice sent by the management. However, she has
mad a humble reply to satisfy her authorities, that taking leave was beyond E
her control, i.e., ill health. But the authorities retired her prematurely and
denied the pension of 20 years of service. Therefore, this kind of action is
unfair arbitrary which cannot be accepted. In fact the order passed by the
bank clearly states it is not the case of premature reitrement and it is not the
case that she has sought voluntary retirement or premature retirement. It is
the bank who has retired her and that kind of contingency is not covered in F
-~
the clarification made by the bank. It is case of deemed voluntary retirement
forced on her. The said contingency is not covered under the aforesaid order
of authoritieExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.