THE STATE BANK OF INDIA versus A.N. GUPTA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 383 · Decided: 30-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE ST A TE BANK OF INDIA 
A 
A.N. GUPTA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 30, I 997 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Rules and Regulations of the Imperial Bank of India Pension and 
Guarantee Fund-Rules IO and /I-Rules governing the service of the C 
Assistants in the Imperial Bank of India-Rule 26 . 
Sanction of the Executive Committee of the Bank for obtaining retirement 
on attaining Superannuation'-Whether necessary?-Held : No, Sanction of 
the Bank is required only if the retirement is by any other method except D 
superannuation viz. Premature retirement, etc. 
Rules IO & /I-Forfeiture of Pension-Permissibility of-Jn case of 
dismissal from service for wilful neglect or fraud. 
Rule I I-Scope of-Claim to pension on superannuation-Rule 11 E 
held to be applicable where an employee leaves the service of the Bank 
before reaching the age of Superannuation or the Bank requires him to retire 
before that date-Rule 26 of the service rules governing the Assistants in the 
Imperial Bank of India. No sanction is required from the Bank under Rule 
11 in case of retirement on superannuation. 
Service Law-Disciplinary proceedings-Continuation thereof after the 
date of superannuation-Held, cannot be permitted as Service Rules do not 
provide for continuation of disciplinary proceedings after the date of 
superannuation. 
F 
Retirement-Types of-Retirement on superannuation and premature G 
Retirement-Premature Retirement may either be compulsory or voluntary. 
Imperial Bank of India Employees' Provident Fund Rules-Rule 20. 
Proviso-Payment to the Bank from the P.F. in case where the employee 
resigning or retiring from the service of the bank is under a liability incurred 
383 
'" 
H 
384 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A by him to the Bank-Applicability-Bank should prima facie establish any 
liability incurred by the employee-Bank cannot be allowed to withhold the 
P.F. due till the amount due from the employee is determined-Held, 
Respondents entitled to the P.F. due to them in the absence of any liability 
incurred. 
B 
Damages-Whether entitled due to wrong withholding of the pension 
and P.F. amount? No-Not as a case where the amounts were wrongly witheld 
by the Bank-Moreover amounts with interest have been paid. 
The respondent in CA 2141180 and the respondent in CA 9943/83 were 
C working as Assistants in the Imperial Bank of India when the undertaking 
of the Imperial Bank was transferred to the State Bank of India the appellant 
herein under the State Bank of India Act, 1955. All the service regulations 
which were applicable to the employees of the Imperial Bank remained 
operative when these employees became the employees of the State Bank of 
India. 
D 
Both the respondents having retired from service as Assistants on 
superannuation were denied pension and provident fund on the ground that 
disciplinary proceedings were going on against them and that these amounts 
could be withheld by the Bank under the provisions of the relevant rules 
E applicable. 
Both the respondents i.e. the respondent in CA 2141/80 and the 
respondent in C.A. 9943/83 filed separate writ petitions before the Delhi High 
Court for a direction to the Bank to pay their respective retirement benefits. 
F 
The respondent in C.A. 2141/80 filed a writ petition in the High Court 
of Delhi for a direction to the Bank to pay his retirement benefits which was 
allowed by a Single Judge. Against this, the Bank went in Letters Patent 
Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court. Similarly, the respondent in 
CA 9943/83 filed a writ petition for a direction to the bank to pay him his 
G retirement benefits. Both the L.P.A filed by the bank against the judgment of 
the Single Judge in the case of respondent in CA 2141/80 and the writ petition 
filed by the respondent in CA 9943/83 were heard together by a Division 
Bench of the Delhi High Court. By the impugned judgement the appeal filed 
by the Bank was dismissed; the writ petition filed by respondent in CA 9943/ 
83 was allowed. The Bank Preferred two appeals against this common 
H judgement of the High Court of Delhi. 
S.B.I. v. A.N. GUPTA 
385 
On behalf of the Appellant Bank, it was contended that the respondents A 
were not entitled to the benefit of the pension as a matter of right. Under Rule 
I I Pension could be held to be payable only when the entire service of the 
retiring employee was certified by the sanction of the Executive Committee of 
the Central Boar

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