REKHA MULIDHAR FATNANI Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the legal representatives of late M. T. Fatnani who was employed with the respondent bank and expired in office on 30th March, 2001 whilst on duty. The case of the petitioners is as under; the respondent is a nationalised Bank and is an instrumentality of the state. By a Circular bearing No. 235/2000 dated December 11, 2000 the respondent bank introduced a Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The said Scheme was in operation for one month from 1st January, 2001 to 31st january, 2001. In terms of the said Scheme, employees who intended to seek voluntary retirement were required to submit duly completed applications as per the proforma annexed to the said circular. These applications were to be forwarded to their respective staff sections through their respective Branches/ officers where they worked, so as to reach the concerned staff section before 31st January, 2001. Late M. T. Fatnani opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and submitted his application in the prescribed form. The respondent bank accepted the said application for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and this was communicated to late Fatnani. The decision to accept the application for Voluntary retirement Scheme was taken on 13th March, 2001 and the same was communicated as required by the Scheme. In terms thereof, late Fatnani was to stand relieved w. e. f. 31-3-2001 after office hours. As set out earlier, late Fatnani expired on 30th March, 2001. According to the petitioners, on 31st March, 2001 the respondent bank deposited a sum of Rs. 3,17,392. 42 paise as dues payable under the Voluntary Retirement scheme, into the bank account of the deceased and a credit advice was issued by the bank. The case of the petitioners is that on account of death of late fatnani, the petitioners were unable to take any steps about any matter relating to the said deceased for almost one year. The petitioners then came to know that the amount credited in favour of late Fatnani payable to him under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was kept in suspense. The petitioners personally met the officers of the respondent bank and thereafter also entered into correspondence, however they did not receive any satisfactory reply. By letter dated 27th August, 2002, the respondent bank informed petitioners that the ex gratia dues payable to later fatnani under Voluntary Retirement Scheme would have become payable only after the date of Fatnani being relieved from the services of the bank, and as he had expired before he was relieved from the services of the bank he was not eligible for the benefits due under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The case of the petitioners is that thereafter they made several representations and also caused to be served a legal notice on 5th September, 2003 wherein they relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of (R. Jyothi v. The General Manager, dena Bank, Mumbai and others), 2003 (96) F. L. R. 325. As there was no response, the present petition.

(2.) ON behalf of the respondent bank, reply has been filed by Mr. M. S. Muralee Manohar, the Manager Staff Section (Officers-Mumbai City Circle ). It is contended by the respondent bank that late Fatnani was not entitled for the benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. It is set out that the relieving date of late Fatnani was to be 31st March, 2001 after office hours, and the same was communicated to late Fatnani vide proceedings dated 13th march, 2001. It is contended that before the effective date of the acceptance of voluntary Retirement Application, Fatnani expired, and as such, his application was lodged at the bank's end. This was communicated to the 1st petitioner vide the bank's letter dated 9-4-2001. It is contended by the respondent bank that as the cessation of service of late Fatnani was on account of death and not on account of voluntary retirement under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000, late Fatnani was not eligible for ex gratia amount. The sum of Rs. 70,000/- was disbursed to his nominee under the Staff Welfare Measure. It is contended that the legal heirs are not entitled to claim simultaneously the benefits under the Staff Welfare Measures and those under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000. It is contended by the respondent bank that the legal heirs are estopped from claiming alleged VRS benefits as they had accepted benefits under the Staff Welfare Measures which are available only to the employees or to the legal heirs in case of death of the respective employee while in service. It is therefore contended that the decision of the bank is not arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust. It is also pointed out that the statement that the bank had deposited Rs. 3,17,392,42 paise in late Fatnani's Bank Account is false and hence denied. The amount which is contended, was calculated on the presumption that late Fatnani would stand relieved under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SVRS) on 31 st March, 2001. It is once again reiterated by the respondent bank that as the cessation of service of late Fatnani was not on account of voluntary retirement, he was not entitled to the benefits under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

(3.) AT the hearing of this petition, learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the Scheme and submitted that once the application for voluntary retirement is accepted and communicated to the employee, it becomes irrevocable both on the part of the employee and the bank. The date of relieving is merely for the convenience of the bank. That date can be preponed or extended. Under the Scheme the date of relieving is only for the purpose of calculating and paying the benefits. It is therefore submitted that it is not required that the employee must be physically available to be relieved to get the benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme if it has been accepted by the bank and communicated to the employee. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent bank, learned Counsel contends that perusal of the Scheme would require that the petitioner is available on the date to be relieved, and if he is not so available and cannot be relieved, he is not entitled for the benefits under the Voluntary Retirement scheme. In the instant case, it is contended that though the bank had accepted the application of the deceased, none the less before he could be relieved on 31-3-2001 in terms of the letter of acceptance, he expired on 30th march, 2001 and in these circumstances, he is not eligible for the benefits. His cessation of service is not on account of voluntary retirement. It is contended that the petitioners have already been paid what they are entitled to on account of death of Fatnani while in service, which they have also accepted. The petitioners cannot avail of both the benefits. Once having accepted one benefit, they are precluded from contending that they are also entitled to be paid under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.