RAVIKUMAR A VERMA Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Pawan Barot, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1. Mr.Darshan M. Parikh, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2. The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had joined the respondent - bank on 26th December, 1978 and was discharging sincere and honest duty throughout the career. It is submitted by the petitioner that on 7.3.2007, the petitioner made an application requesting for sabbatical leave for a period of three years for joining spouse and children, who are residing abroad. The competent authority has considered the said leave for a period of three years and by way of communication dated 29th March 2007, the respondent - bank sanctioned the said leave on the terms and conditions which are stipulated in this communication. 2. 1 It is further the case of the petitioner that this sabbatical leave has been sanctioned in view of the terms of the scheme that thereafter, the petitioner being in a position to resume the duty had applied for voluntary retirement from the bank services under the Regulation and said application was given on 15.4.2010. The said request for VRS was accepted by the competent authority on 9.9.2010. 2. 2 It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had already opted for pension under the provisions of Bank of Baroda (Employees) Pension Regulation. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been permitted to voluntarily retire on 9.9.2010. However, before that, the memorandum of settlement dated 27th April, 2010 arrived at between the management of 46 Banks represented by Indian Bank Association and their workmen. As a result of this settlement, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to receive revised pension with effect from 1.11.2007. The petitioner has stated that despite repeated representations, the Bank has considered the request which has compelled the petitioner to move this Court by way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for seeking aforementioned reliefs which are prayed for. 2. 3 The Court on the basis of this stand taken by the petitioner has issued notice on 18.10.2013 made it returnable and subsequently, during the course of adjudication of present petition the orders indicate that on 10.1.2010, the Court has directed the petitioner to clarify whether he had actually joined the service immediately after completion of sabbatical leave or not. It appears that thereafter, the pleadings have been completed and the matter had come up for consideration before this Court in which, extensive hearing has taken place and both the learned advocates requested the Court to deal with and decide the matter finally since the pleadings are completed. Hence, the hearing at length has taken place.

(3.) The learned advocate Mr.Nirav Sanghavi appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been permitted to go on leave for a period of three years as a sabbatical leave. The said leave has been sanctioned for a period of three years by way of communication dated 29th March, 2007 and thereafter, the petitioner has been permitted to retire voluntarily on 9.9.2010 and therefore, the benefit which has accrued before the date of retirement are liable to be paid as has been paid to others. It has further been contended that bi-parte settlement has taken place on 27th April, 2010 prior to the voluntary retirement on 9.9.2010 and therefore, the benefit which was extended by virtue of said settlement was with effect from 1.11.2007 and therefore, the petitioner is only entitled to seek benefit of revised pension, but also entitled to all other consequential benefits on the revised rate, and therefore, the petitioner is legitimately entitled to pray for these benefits for which, the petition is brought before the Court. 3. 1 Mr. Nirav Sanghavi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has further contended that condition No.5 which is tried to be pressed into service for denial of the due benefit, the said condition runs counter to the regulations and bi-parte settlement. Such condition cannot be allowed to be pressed into service since the pension is held to be property and therefore, cannot be denied illegitimately and arbitrarily. Mr.Nirav Snghavi, learned advocate for the petitioner has further contended that pensionary benefits are flowing from benevolent object and for unilateral social security and therefore, instead of taking hyper technical stand, bank ought to have allowed the request made by the petitioner. Non-consideration of request, therefore, amounts to arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of jurisdiction, therefore, the relief as prayed for may be granted in the interest of justice. It has further been contended that the denial of benefit is based upon the misconstruction of clauses contained in the 9th bi-parte settlement and Regulations of 1995 and against the basic scheme of sabbatical leave, and therefore, the action on the part of the respondent authority is only unjust and arbitrary, but based upon whims and such denial therefore, deserves to be corrected by granting relief as prayed for. 3. 2 To strengthen the submissions, the learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to some of the correspondences which have taken place between the petitioner and the respondent authority and thereby has contended that action on the part of the respondent authority is completely illogical and in consonance with the very object for which the settlement took place. Therefore, action is hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. 3 Mr. Nirav Snghavi, learned advocate for the petitioner in support of his submissions has relied upon few decisions delivered by the various Courts and has denied the stand of the bank by contending that there is no res judicata to be applied to the writ proceedings. Such decisions are reproduced hereinafter: