CHHATTISGARH RAJYA GRAMIN BANK Vs. ASHA RAM SURYAVANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Correctness and sustainability of the order dated 26.6.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.1692/2011 is put to challenge in this appeal by which the learned Single Judge allowed writ petition filed by respondent employee and granted following relief:-

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 1.9.1981 respondent was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier by appellant No.1-Bank and posted in its Branch at Amera, Raipur. On 6.10.2004 respondent moved an application (Annexure P-2 to writ petition) seeking pre-mature retirement on the grounds mentioned therein. Appellant Bank accepted request of respondent vide order Annexure P-1 dated 01.12.2004 treating application Annexure P-2 to be a letter of resignation. Respondent made representations on 11.2.2005, 8.9.2005 & 18.7.2007 stating therein that he has not been paid pension, leave encashment, gratuity, provident fund. When representations submitted by respondent yielded no result, respondent preferred writ petition before the High Court seeking for following reliefs;-

(3.) Pleadings made in writ petition were sought to be resisted by appellant Bank mentioning in its reply that appellant Bank has not received any representation seeking amount of retiral dues; as there was no scheme of voluntary/pre-mature retirement in appellant bank, therefore, application of respondent for pre-mature retirement has been treated and accepted as an application for resignation. The learned Single Judge while considering the pleadings and submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties, allowed writ petition vide impugned order holding that if there was no provision for pre-mature retirement, appellant Bank ought not to have accepted application of respondent employee for pre-mature retirement.