SATYA NARAYAN DORA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Cashier-cum-Clerk-cum-Typist (CCT) under the State Bank of India, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to sanction pension under the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules, with effect from 1/3/2013, on his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 28/2/2013. The petitioner further seeks for direction to the opposite parties to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of arrears of pension due to him with effect from 21/3/2015, i.e. the date from which the award became enforceable under Sec. 17A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, till the same is actually paid.

(2.) The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that, the petitioner joined in the permanent post of Cashier-cum-Clerk-cum-Typist (CCT) in State Bank of India on 18/1/1979. While he was working in the Temple Road Branch, Puri, on 30/10/1986, the opposite party-bank placed him under suspension. Steps were also taken to prosecute him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Before investigation was completed, the opposite party bank conducted a domestic enquiry against the petitioner and after holding him guilty, dismissed him from service on 17/2/1990. Subsequently, the CBI refused to prosecute the petitioner and consequentially, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar discharged him from the case on 3/12/1990. Against dismissal from service on 17/2/1990, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Commissioner, Bhubaneswar. The Central Government, vide order dtd. 28/8/1991 referred the said dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar for adjudication with the following schedule of reference:-

(3.) Mr. Sidhartha Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the dismissal order passed by the authority having been set aside by the CGIT, and such order of the CGIT having been confirmed by this Court, as a consequence thereof, the petitioner has been allowed to continue in service till attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. 28/2/2013. After being retired from service, he is entitled to get the pension as per the rules. The same having not been paid, the petitioner approached this Court in the present writ petition. He also further contended that the petitioner has been paid 50% back wages in compliance to the order passed by the CGIT, which has also been made confirmed by this Court and also allowed to retire from service on 28/2/2013. There is not only delay in payment of dues admissible to the petitioner, but also the pension amount is due to him. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 21/3/2015, i.e. the date from which the award became enforceable under Sec. 17A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, till the same is actually paid.