SATYA SRINATH Vs. SYNDICATE BANK REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is the writ appellant. The Appellant feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27. 7. 1999 passed by a learned Single judge of this Court dismissing the Writ Petition and holding that the appellant is not entitled for pension, has preferred this writ appeal.

(2.) THE events leading to the passing of the impugned order were that the petitioner was an employee of Syndicate Bank, the respondent herein on the ground that the Appellant remained absent unauthorisedly with effect from 11. 03. 1992 a notice dated 18. 11. 92 was issued to her calling upon her either to report back for duty or submit explanation for her absence within 30 days, ie. on or before 21. 12. 92. The Appellant was also informed that if she failed to comply with the above direction, she would be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the service of the Bank on expiry of 30 days from the date of notice in terms of Clause 17 (a) of the V Bipartite Settlement. The Appellant replied to the notice on 17. 12. 92. According to the bank s management, as the explanation of the Appellant was not satisfactory, the Bank sent a letter dated 10. 12. 1992 informing the appellant that she was deemed to have voluntarily retired from service with effect from 23. 12. 92 in terms of Clause 17 (a) of the V Bipartite settlement and she had accordingly ceased to be in the service of the Bank with effect from that date. At this stage itself, it is pertinent to note that the Appellant in her explanation stated that due to illness, she was unable to report for duty immediately and sought extension of time to report for duty. It was also her case that she was forced to be away from the duties since 11. 03. 1992 due to her serious illhealth and she had been submitting leave applications supported by medical certificates promptly. Rejecting the above explanation submitted by the Appellant as not satisfactory and rejecting the prayer of the Appellant for extension of time for resuming duty, the Bank passed an order dated 30. 12. 1992. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant filed W. P. No. 1259 of 1995 in this Court seeking a direction to the respondent-Bank to reinstate her into service with all benefits. This court by order dated 23. 1. 1995 dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that there was inordinate delay in assailing the validity of the order dated 30. 12. 92. It is stated that that order was allowed to become final.

(3.) THE Syndicate Bank (Employee s) Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short Regulations) came into force on 29. 9. 1995 on publication in the official gazettee. The management of the Bank issued a circular dated 4. 11. 1995 stating that the Regulations were applicable to the following categories of the employees: