STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. VISHAV KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent filed by the State Bank of Patiala is directed against the judgment dated 07.02.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that an employee who has been removed from service would be entitled to pension and other retiral benefits as per Clause 6(b) of the memorandum of settlement signed between the Bank and the writ petitioner-respondent. It would be appropriate to set out the Clause 6 (a) to (d) of the bipartite settlement, which reads as under:

(2.) The learned Single Judge interpreted the aforesaid Clause in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent and has held that the Clause clearly provides that removal with superannuation benefits is one of the punishment provided. In other words, on the language of the Clause, the employee is held entitled to superannuation benefits. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the following para of the judgment, which reads as under :-

(3.) Mr. H.N. Mehtani, learned counsel for the appellant-Bank has argued that the words 'due otherwise under the Rules and Regulations' must be given some meaning and the interpretation also placed by the learned Single Judge would render the aforesaid words as illusory. According to learned counsel, the whole rule would read to mean that an employee can be removed without superannuation benefits, which would be due to him otherwise under the Rules.