PATEL GOVINDBHAI MANILAL Vs. DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

(2.) Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner was appointed with the Dena Bank on 1/7/1977. He was thereafter promoted from time to time and pursuant to disciplinary proceedings, by an order dtd. 6/2/2001 an order of reversion was passed. The order was confirmed and on a challenge made before this Court, the petition was allowed. It appears that the Bank thereafter, by an order dtd. 13/12/2003, pursuant to a separate inquiry and a charge sheet, passed an order of compulsory retirement of service from the Bank with immediate effect and without notice. The order was passed in accordance with powers under Regulation 7(3) of the Dena Bank Officers' Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The petitioner at the relevant point of time, having compulsorily retired did not opt for the Pension Scheme under the Pension Regulations of 1995. He was, therefore, paid retirement benefits including leave encashment, gratuity and provident fund. According to the petitioner, he was paid an amount of Rs.3,17,770.00.

(3.) Mr. Hardik Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that on compulsory retirement, an employee can be granted pension at the rate not less than 2/3rd and not more than full pension. For taking a decision in context of the regulations whether to grant 2/3rd or 100%, Mr. Rawal, learned advocate, would submit that the Bank has to follow the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, by only granting 2/3rd pension, in effect the respondent Bank has effected a pension cut of 33.33% in case of a compulsorily retired employee and therefore, the decision is bad.