GHANSHYAMBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL Vs. BANK OF INIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was compulsorily retired by the respondent Bank vide order dated 23.08.1988, claims pension and challenge is made to Regulation No. 33 of the Bank of India (Employee's) Pension Regulations, 1995, insofar as it denies pension to compulsory retirees prior to 01.11.1993. Heard Mr. A.K. Clerk, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Nandish Chudgar for Nanavati Associates for the respondent Bank.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the date of birth of the petitioner is 18.08.1928. He had joined the service of the respondent Bank as Clerk on 18.10.1948 and he was promoted as an officer on 16.11.1960. He was further promoted as Chief Manager in the year 1983. His date of birth being 18.08.1928, and the superannuation age being 60 years, he was to retire on 31.08.1988. About a week before effective date of retirement, respondent Bank passed an order on 23.08.1988, ordering compulsory retirement of the petitioner, which was by way of penalty for misconduct. The said punishment order is not the subject-matter of this petition. It is also stated that whatever was payable at the relevant time as per Rules, was paid to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that even with the penalty of compulsory retirement, he is entitled to pension, and denial by the respondent Bank is only on the ground that the said penalty was inflicted on 23.08.1988, which is prior to cut-off date 01.11.1993 stipulated in Regulation No. 33 of the Pension Regulations of the respondent Bank, which reads as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Compulsory Retirement Pension is one class of pension and those who are compulsorily retired for misconduct, on and after 01.11.1993 are entitled to be considered for grant of pension in terms of Regulation No. 33, which is reproduced above. It is pointed out that it is the cut-off date in this regard, which is coming in the way of petitioner. It is indicated that, had the date of punishment order been, after 01.11.1993 but before issuance of Pension Regulations which happened in the year 1995, then also the petitioner was entitled to pension, as per the Regulation of the respondent Bank itself. So far as prescription of 01.11.1993 as the cut-off date is concerned, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is arbitrary, it has no rationale and this issue, according to him, is already concluded by the decisions of various High Courts, as confirmed by Honourable the Supreme Court of India. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Madhav K. Kritikar v. Bank of India (respondent Bank itself), in Writ Petition No. 620 of 1996 dated 07.01.1997, Annexure-B to this petition. It is also indicated that the said decision of the Bombay High Court was challenged by the respondent Bank before Honourable the Supreme Court of India and the said challenge failed. The said order of Honourable the Supreme Court of India, which is at Annexure-C to this petition, is subsequently Bank of India v. Indu Rajagopalan and others, 2001 9 SCC 318. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Honourable the Supreme Court of India in case of United Bank of India v. Prasanta Kumar Roy and others, 2012 2 LLJ 12as well as in case of Syndicate Bank, Bangalore v. Satya Srinath, 2007 2 LLJ 820 and on the decision of Madras High Court in case of C.P. Krishnaswamy v. Punjab National Bank in Writ Appeal No. 2768 of 2002, decided on 10.12.2009. It is contended that in view of above pronouncements, the claim of the petitioner be accepted and denial by the respondent Bank on the ground of the penalty order having been passed prior to 01.11.1993, be interfered with and relief as prayed for be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage also stated that, in the event the case of the petitioner is accepted by the Court, the petitioner is ready and willing to refund the amount, which may be required as per Rules, or the same be adjusted by the respondent Bank, against the amount which may become payable to the petitioner.