LAWS(TLNG)-2024-12-34

K.MALLIKARJUNAN Vs. UCO BANK

Decided On December 13, 2024
K.Mallikarjunan Appellant
V/S
UCO BANK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the order of dismissal from service passed by the respondent bank on 26/6/1995 with covering letter in proceedings No.PER/ER/95/2699, dtd. 28/8/1995 as ex-facie illegal in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank and Others Vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla, reported in 2018 (14) SCC Page 92 and not releasing the bank's contribution to provident fund immediately, but releasing it after a lapse of more than 14 years, which has resulted in non- opting for pension by the petitioner which is condonable and rejection of the request as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to further declare that the petitioner is entitled for pension with effect from the date of applicability under the UCO Bank Employees Pension Regulations 1995 and to grant all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent bank as Junior Officer Scale-I on 21/3/1958 and thereafter he was promoted as Officer Scale-II in the year 1970, as Senior Manager Scale-III in the year 1976, as Chief Manager Scale-IV in April, 1985 and as Assistant General Manager Scale- V in April 1987. The petitioner was about to retire from service on 30/6/1993, but the respondent bank issued a charge sheet on 29/6/1993, alleging certain irregularities and the service of the petitioner was extended till the completion of inquiry. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation denying the charges leveling against him.

(3.) It is submitted that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30/6/1993, but his services were extended vide letter dtd. 29/6/1993 without payment of any salary, but the petitioner paid his contribution to the provident fund vide covering letter No.PER:PF:CLAIM:2264/93, dtd. 27/7/1993. It is submitted that though the respondent bank possessed inherent power to extend the service of the petitioner till the completion of enquiry, they have no power or authority to impose any punishment after attaining the age of superannuation with retrospective effect.