GUNVANTLAL KANTILAL SHAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Shailesh C. Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Varun K. Patel, learned advocate for respondent Bank.

(2.) THE petitioner has claimed interest on the delayed payment of his retirement dues, and on the amount of leave salary which was illegally retained by the respondent bank.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Varun K. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent bank stated that the decision of the bank to treat the application of the petitioner as resignation, was in consonance with the rules prevailing then and that was duly accepted by the petitioner. It is also contended that the said decision was never challenged by the petitioner and the same is not the subject matter in this petition either. It is contended by learned advocate for the respondent bank that the Pension Regulations came to be adopted in the year 1995 and atleast when the petitioner gave application for voluntary retirement, those Regulations had not come into force. It is further contended that even the language of the application of the petitioner also reveals that the petitioner claimed that, as and when the pension scheme is adopted by the bank, pension may be given to the petitioner. Learned advocate for the respondent bank further contended that, in view of the rules prevailing then, it was the decision of the respondent bank that the petitioner is not entitled to pension and therefore, pension was not paid. It is reiterated by the learned advocate for the respondent bank that the said action of the bank was not a subject matter of challenge at any point of time, except the representations which were made by the petitioner from time to time. It is further indicated that the decision was taken by the Indian Banks' Association, in consultation with the Government of India, to treat even those applications which were given after 01.11.1993, but, before the actual coming into force of the Pension Regulations, to be treated and accepted as voluntary retirement and in that regard, even a circular was issued on 27.11.1997. It is contended that in view of the said circular of 27.11.1997, all banks including the respondent bank started taking corrective measures and under these circumstances, the authorities of the bank at its head office, decided to accord pension to the petitioner from the date he had opted for voluntary retirement. It is claimed that after the issuance of circular of Indian Banks' Association in November, 1997 since it was being implemented for the first time, it took some time and the petitioner is paid his dues in April/May, 1999 and according to bank, the same is not undue delay and the respondent bank which is a public sector bank, can not be fastened with the liability of interest, for an action, which was neither challenged, nor is, illegal or arbitrary. So far the dispute with regard to leave salary is concerned, it is contended by learned advocate for the respondent bank that it was the bonafide mistake and the total amount which had remained with the bank, is less than Rs.20,000/- and the period is of about three and half years. Therefore, it is contended that since there was bonafide error, the respondent bank may not be fastened with the liability on that count. So far the grievance with regard to amount of leave salary is concerned, learned advocate for the respondent stated that there was bonafide error on the part of the bank and even the disputed amount was about Rs.20,000/-. However, he could not dispute that the period during which it remained with the bank was more than three years.