BANARSI DASS GUPTA Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As apparent from the record, pensionary benefits came to be sanctioned in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1996. He did receive pension upto 31.5.1996. The stoppage of pension was directed by the respondent - Bank vide order dated 25.6.1996 (Annexure P3). The order informed the petitioner that since the latter had been compulsorily retired by the Bank and since he had concealed that fact while submitting the relevant application form for the grant of pensionary benefit, he was not eligible for the pensionary benefits. He was further directed to refund a sum of Rs. 15,400/- which had been paid during the period January 1996 to May 1996.

(2.) Apart from other facets of controversy, an essential grievance of the petitioner was that the impugned order could not have been granted without affording an opportunity of a hearing to him.

(3.) It is not even the plea on behalf of the respondents that an opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed.