STATE BANK OF MYSORE Vs. DAKSHAYANI PREMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the Management of the State Bank of Mysore, being aggrieved by the order dated 7-6-2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 4839 of 2001 wherein, the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 2-9-2000 of the management of the Bank relieving the writ petitioner from services of the Bank under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme with effect from 4-9-2000 and further directed the Bank to consider the application dated 23-2-2001 filed by the writ petitioner under special policy of Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the year 2001.

(2.) THE writ petitioner, for the sake of brevity henceforth referred to as an 'employee', was working as an Assistant Manager at Mahalakshmi layout Branch of the appellant-Bank. The Bank accepted her option to be governed by the State Bank of Mysore Employees' (Pension)Regulations, 1995 which came into force with effect from 29-9-1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'regulations' ). The employee having completed 25 years of qualifying service, in accordance with Regulation 29 of the Regulations, filed an application dated 6-6-2000, as at annexure-A seeking voluntary retirement from service, on medical grounds, enclosing the medical certificate. In the said application, the employee requested the Bank to relieve her after the expiry of 90 days therefrom, in other words, effective after 4-9-2000. However, on 2-9-2000 by a letter of even date, as at Ex. Annexure-B, she sought to withdraw her request for retirement under sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 29 of the Regulations. The said request was forwarded to the Assistant general Manager-Operations, the Competent Authority, along with a note seeking appropriate orders. The Competent Authority, on the very same day, i. e. , on 2-9-2000, endorsed on the note declining permission for withdrawal and directed that the employee be relieved from service. The Branch Manager, by his letter dated 2-9-2000 as at Annexure-D relieved the writ petitioner from the services of the Bank. The employee having utilised the benefits of the retirement scheme, questioned the relieving order dated 2-9-2000 in the writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant-Bank introduced a special policy with regard to Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2001, which request was rejected by an endorsement dated 3-3-2001 on the ground that she was no more an employee of the Bank entitled to any benefits under the said special policy.

(3.) BEFORE the teamed Single Judge, the learned Counsel for the employee contended that since the employee by her letter dated 2-9-2000 as at Annexure-B withdrew her request for voluntary retirement before the due date i. e. , 4-9-2000, the Bank could not have acted illegally by relieving her of duties as on 2-9-2000 itself. The said contention was supported by the following judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of balram Gupta v Union of India and Another; J. N. Srivastava v Union of India and Another; Union of India and Another v Wing Commander t. Parthasarathy and the decision of this Court in H. L. Nagaraju and another v Deputy General Manager, Personnel Department (HRD), vijaya Bank, Head Office, Bangalore and Another.