JAYANTILAL HIRALAL SOLANKI Vs. DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is made by an employee, to the action of the respondent Bank, of refusing the pension option to the petitioner.

(2.) Mr.Ramnani, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had joined the service on 10.11.1981, he was terminated from service on 03.04.2000, which was challenged before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal by filing Reference (CGITA) No.113 of 2006, which was allowed vide award dated 22.04.2014. The termination was substituted by withholding of two increments with future effect. The petitioner was to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages. The said award was challenged by the Bank before this Court in Special Civil Application No.17072 of 2014, however this Court had interfered only in the back wages and order was passed on 18.02.2015. It is submitted that the conjoint effect of the award and order of this Court is that, the order of termination was substituted by withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. It is submitted that the effective date of reinstatement of the petitioner was 09.03.2015, however he was treated to be in employment all throughout, notionally and the arrears of wages was paid from the date of award till the actual date of reinstatement. It is submitted that during the period for which the petitioner was out of the employment, the Bank had invited options for joining the pension scheme. Attention of this Court is invited to the Circular dated 30.08.2010 to contend that the petitioner had right to switchover to pension, pursuant to the said Circular and time limit in this case could not have been operated against the petitioner, since at the relevant time, the petitioner

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.Varun Patel, learned advocate for the respondent Bank has contested this petition. Learned advocate for the respondent Bank has taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit in reply dated 01.07.2017. It is submitted that neither in the award of the CGIT, nor in the order of this Court dated 18.02.2015 recorded on Special Civil Application No.17072 of 2014, there is any clarification, how the earlier service would be dealt with. It is submitted that the petitioner could not be given the option, as asked for by him. It is submitted that this petition be dismissed.