NAGO RAO TEMBURKAR Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

(2.) The petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dtd. 20/4/2009 by which the petitioner’s application for payment of compassionate allowance and pension has been rejected. The petitioner has also sought writ for payment of pension and gratuity.

(3.) A departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner, who was the then Assistant Manager of Central Bank of India and thereafter, the petitioner was inflicted with penalty of dismissal from service by the disciplinary authority by order dtd. 24/2/1998 and his appeal was also dismissed by order dtd. 22/6/1998 and writ petition against that order has also been dismissed by this Court by order dtd. 7/11/2005 passed in W.P.No.4749/1999. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate allowance as per Regulation 31 of the Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short, 'the Regulations of 1995') and also claimed pension. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been communicated that he is not entitled for pension as well as also not entitled for compassionate allowance in view of the gross misconduct of embezzlement of cash of depositors/borrowers and he is also not entitled for pension in view of Regulation 4(j) of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. It is the case of the petitioner that his case for compassionate allowance has not been considered strictly in the light of Regulation 31 of the Regulations of 1995 and relevant factors laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India and others, (2014) 11 SCC 684 have also not been considered and simply in one line it has been dismissed. It has also been pleaded that only 20% of the gratuity amount has been given and rest of the amount has not been given.