B VITTAL PAI Vs. SYNDICATE BANK MANIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, in this petition, is a former Assistant General Manager of the respondent-Syndicate Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the bank" ).

(2.) THE facts of this case are few and are not in dispute. They may be stated as hereunder:

(3.) IN this petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order Annexure-J, dated 14th of July, 1995 wherein the said order insofar as it relates to the direction retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 30th of September, 1990 and also orders Annexure-L, dated 31st of October, 1995 and Annexure-Q, dated 30th of august, 1996 wherein the request of the petitioner to treat the period of service from 1st of October, 1990 till 14th of June, 1995 and the past service of 12 years put in by the petitioner in the Canara Banking corporation, came to be rejected by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to give the benefit of five years of qualifying service for the purpose of pension in terms of Syndicate Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Pension Regulations"), if necessary by declaring the second and third provisos given to Regulation 26 of the Pension regulations as null and void. However, during the hearing of this petition, Sri P. S. Rajagopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner will not press his prayer for a direction to the Bank to consider his service from 3rd of August, 1956 to 30th of April, 1969 rendered by him in Canara Banking Corporation for the purpose of pension. He has also filed a memo on 16th of December, 1998 stating that the petitioner does not press his prayer (d) wherein he had sought for a direction to the Bank for payment of revised subsistence allowance with effect from 1st of July, 1993 and also revised gratuity and leave salary on the basis of revised salary and allowance in terms of Circular dated 19th of July, 1995. He submitted that the petitioner may be reserved liberty to seek the said prayer in a separate writ petition. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to delete prayer (d) with liberty reserved to the petitioner, if he is so advised, to challenge the same by means of a separate writ petition.