V.RAJAGOPAL REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus or any other direction declaring the action of the respondent bank stipulating a condition in the proceedings Ref.GR:O:306112:2018-19, dt.29/6/2018 that the petitioner is not entitled for commutation of provisional pension as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dt.11/7/2019, 28/2/2020, 3/9/2021 and 8/9/2021 and to permit the petitioner for commutation of pension as per Regulation 47 of the Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner joined the respondent bank as a Probationary Officer in the year 1985 and thereafter, he was promoted to various posts including to the posts of Field Officer, Bank Manager, etc. He retired from service with effect from 30/6/2018 in the capacity of Senior Manager Scale-III. The petitioner was, however, not permitted to commute his pension and the petitioner was being paid only provisional pension. Therefore, the petitioner made several representations for the same, but since the same have not been considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was permitted to retire with effect from 30/6/2018 and there was also a 'No Due Certificate' issued by the bank on 21/11/2015. It is submitted that while the petitioner was in service, there were certain allegations made against the petitioner and the bank had filed a complaint to the CBI dt.3/9/2012 against certain borrowers and the CBI had registered Crime No.Rc.14(E)/2012/CBI/EOW/CHENNAI and the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.7 therein. The same is registered as C.C.No.16 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Nampally, Hyderabad. He submitted that on the ground that the said C.C. is pending against the petitioner, the petitioner was not being permitted to commute a portion of the pension and the petitioner is being paid only provisional pension. He submitted that in the said proceedings even the gratuity was withheld. Therefore, the petitioner had approached the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the petitioner was allowed payment of gratuity along with interest @ 10% per annum from the due dates. Since the petitioner was not being permitted to commute the pension but is being paid only the provisional pension, he filed the present Writ Petition.