VASANTHY MOHAN Vs. THE NEDUNGADI BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Writ Appeals have been filed against the same judgment dated 2.3.2013 in O.P.No.39132 of 2002. The parties in these appeals shall be described as referred to in the Original Petition. Both the parties being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, have come up in these two Writ Appeals. Brief facts which emerged from the pleadings of the parties are:

(2.) The petitioner entered into the service of the first respondent Nedungadi Bank as a clerk on 17.5.1982. The petitioner was promoted as officer in the year 1999. The petitioner was on leave on loss of pay from 18.4.2000 till 29.3.2001. The petitioner went on maternity leave on 16.7.2001. The petitioner did not rejoin duty after the maternity leave and again took leave on loss of pay till 19.1.2002. The petitioner sent leave application dated 20.1.2002. Exhibit P1 communication dated 11.3.2002 was sent to the petitioner by the Bank stating that the Bank is not in a position to grant further extraordinary leave as the petitioner has already been sanctioned 486 days extraordinary leave on medical ground. The petitioner was instructed to report for duty immediately, failing which the Bank will be constrained to take appropriate action. The petitioner was informed that the period of absence will be treated as unauthorised absence. The petitioner, as per Exhibit P2 dated 9.4.2002, again requested for grant of leave to enable to recoup from the ailment. On 9.5.2002 by Exhibit P3 the Bank communicated to the petitioner that extraordinary leave cannot be sanctioned as informed earlier. The petitioner was advised to report for duty, failing which it shall be treated as misconduct and the matter be proceeded accordingly. The petitioner on 17.6.2002 by Exhibit P4 further prayed that she may be granted leave till 31.7.2002 by which date the petitioner is ready to resume duty. On 26.6.2002 by Exhibit P5 a memo was issued by the disciplinary authority informing the petitioner that the Bank infer that the petitioner do not desire to continue her employment in the Bank and she was asked to explain as to why her absence should not be construed as deserting employment. The petitioner was asked to submit explanation within 15 days. After receipt of Exhibit P5 memo, the petitioner wrote to the Deputy General Manager on 6.7.2002 informing that she hopes to join duty in the third week of July. Again a request was made for grant of extraordinary leave. On 22.7.2002 the petitioner sent another letter informing that due to certain problems she was forced to apply for voluntary retirement from service and she requested to permit her to retire under the voluntary retirement scheme, so that she could get eligible pension and other retirement benefits. The petitioner again informed the Bank as per Exhibit P8 letter that her request for voluntary retirement be considered. She also informed that she was at Doha, Qatar. The Bank, by Exhibit P9 letter dated 18.9.2002 informed that the petitioner having not attained the requisite qualifying service for opting for voluntary retirement, under the pension regulations her request cannot be considered.

(3.) Meanwhile the Central Government by order dated 2.11.2002 had issued a moratorium under Sub-Section (2) of Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The Reserve Bank of India has prepared a scheme for the amalgamation of the Nedungadi Bank Ltd. with the Punjab National Bank, which was published in the gazette. The Government of India, after considering suggestions and objections, issued an order dated 31.1.2003 sanctioning the scheme, namely, Nedungadi Bank Limited (Amalgamation with Punjab National Bank) Scheme, 2003. The Scheme came into effect with effect from 1.2.2003.