YOUSUF KHAN Vs. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was working as Defter in the State Bank of Hyderabad. He remained absent unauthorisedly with effect from 26-09-1997. He was issued a notice dated 22-04-1999, stating that his absence is unauthorized and he was required to report to duty within 30 days, failing which he will be deemed to have retired voluntarily from the service of the Bank, on expiry of the period of notice. The Petitioner did not join the duty within that period. In the circular, dated 19-02-2000, it was mentioned that the Petitioner voluntarily vacated the office, held by him, with effect from 26-09-1997.

(2.) Regulation 22 of the State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short the Pension Regulations') directs that, an employee, who is deemed to have voluntarily retired from the service, in terms of the provisions of voluntary cessation of employment, contained in the Bipartite Settlement, shall entail in forfeiture of his entire past service, and consequently shall not qualify for pensioner benefits. The Petitioner challenges the validity of Regulation 22 of the Pension Regulations. He contends that the proceedings issued against him on the one hand, stating that he has voluntarily retired from service, and such retirement should carry the benefit of the past service, in the form of payment of pension. He contends that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and the right to receive pension cannot be taken away.

(3.) The Respondents filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the writ petition. According to them, the Petitioner incurred disqualification in terms of Regulation 22 of the Pension Regulations, and that except ventilating the grievances, he did not state any reasons, as to how Regulation 22 is contrary to law.