SYNDICATE BANK versus N. R. BHAT

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 10-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 475 : 2023 INSC 1064
475
CASE DETAILS
SYNDICATE BANK
v.
N. R. BHAT
(Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7277 of 2020)
OCTOBER 10, 2023
[HIMA KOHLI AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Matter was settled between the parties 
(respondent-employee and petitioner-bank) by virtue of the Joint 
Compromise Memo dated 17.06.2019, however, the High Court permitted 
the respondent-employee to exercise the option of availing retiral beneﬁ ts 
and directed the petitioner-bank to pass appropriate orders.
Service Law – Respondent-employee was dismissed by petitioner-
bank – Before the High Court, the parties arrived at an amicable 
settlement in terms of a Joint Memo dated 17.06.2019 where under 
the petitioner-Bank agreed to substitute the penalty of dismissal 
from service imposed on the respondent-employee with the penalty 
of reduction of time scale of pay by four stages but without adversely 
aﬀ ecting his retiral beneﬁ ts – Further, the respondent-employee was 
granted liberty to exercise the option of availing retiral beneﬁ ts and 
with a further direction to the petitioner-Bank to consider and pass 
appropriate orders – Aggrieved by the liberty granted to the respondent-
employee, petitioner- bank ﬁ led appeal:
Held: Submission of the petitioner–Bank accepted for the simple reason 
that even if the relationship of the employer-employee had ceased on the 
dismissal of the respondent-employee on 03.03.1997, once the dismissal 
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate 
Authority vide order dated 06.04.1997, was set aside by the High Court by 
virtue of the judgment dated 23.06.2005, the umbilical cord between the 
petitioner-Bank and the respondent-employee stood restored and there was 
ample opportunity for the respondent-employee to have exercised the option 
(pension) in terms of the Circular dated 16.04.2010, which he failed to do 
476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
– Having missed the bus, the respondent-employee could not have claimed 
any beneﬁ t of pension that too after entering into a Joint Memo of Settlement 
with the petitioner-Bank – As far as release of amount as per Joint Memo 
is concerned, while issuing notice on 30.06.2020 this Court permitted Joint 
Memo between the parties to be implemented – The petitioner-Bank did not 
release the amounts payable to the respondent-employee in terms of the Memo 
of settlement and that the said amounts were ﬁ nally released as recently as 
on 30.09.2023 – Therefore, the respondent-employee to be compensated 
for illegal withholding of the settlement dues payable to him in terms of the 
Joint Memo dated 17.06.2019 – Having regard to the fact that this is an issue 
relating to withholding of retiral beneﬁ ts, it is deemed appropriate to direct 
the petitioner-Bank to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum to 
the respondent-employee w.e.f. 01.07.2019, till the date the said amount is 
released in favour of the respondent-employee. [Paras 7, 9, 10]
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave 
Petition (Civil) No.7277 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.06.2019 of the High Court of 
Karnataka at Bengaluru in WA No.3255 of 2005.
Appearances:
Puneet Taneja, Manmohan Singh Narua, Amit Yadav, Advs. for the 
Petitioner.
Ayush Negi, Ms. Vishakha Upadhaya, Shikhar Chanda, Advs. for the 
Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
ORDER
1. The Petitioner-Bank is aggrieved by an order dated 17th June, 2019 
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in an Intra Court Appeal1 
1 
Writ Appeal No.3255 of 2005
477
whereby, while taking on record the Joint Memo dated 17th June, 2019 ﬁ led 
by the parties, in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the 
respondent-employee that he would be submitting a request to the petitioner-
Bank for opting for pension. The respondent-employee was permitted to 
exercise the option of availing retiral beneﬁ ts and making a written request to 
the petitioner-Bank to pass appropriate orders within eight weeks thereafter.
2. Before adverting to the submissions made by learned counsel for 
the parties, a brief reference to the relevant facts is necessary:
3. The respondent-employee joined the services of the petitioner-Bank 
as an Oﬃ  cer Trainee on 31st March, 1969. On completion of probation, he 
was posted as a Probationary Junior Oﬃ  cer on 3rd Octobe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.