2007 Supreme(SC) 525

2007(3) Supreme 895
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
A.K. Mathur and Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.
Syndicate Bank, Bangalore — Appellant
versus
Satya Srinath — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6721 of 2004
Decided on 17-4-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Adarsh B. Dial, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Sumati Anand and Rajiv Nanda, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ms. Anitha Shenoy and Naveen R. Nath, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Compulsory retirement/premature retirement ordered by management would not disentitle bank employee benefit of Syndicate Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 1995 where employee was otherwise eligible to pension under the scheme.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW — Syndicate Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 — Pension entitlement — Categories of employees — One such category was those who were in service of Bank on or after 1-1-1986 but had retired before 29-9-1995 — Ex-employees who had voluntarily retired in terms of Bank and Service Regulations Clause No. 19(1) or deemed to have voluntarily retired in terms of Vth Bipartite Settlement, between 1-1-1986 and 31-10-1993 were not eligible for pension under Pension Regulations, 1995 — Respondent employee remained unauthorisedly absent from 11-3-1992, till by show cause she was retired compulsorily w.e.f. 23-12-1992 in terms of clause 17(a) of Vth Bipartite Settlement — Her challenge to that order in writ was unsuccessful — Appellant then brought Pension Regulation, 1995 and respondent claimed benefit of scheme as she had completed 20 years of service — Claim was denied to her — Single Judge dismissed her writ — Division Bench, allowed and held respondent entitled to pension — Appeal — Difference between respondent deemed to have voluntarily retired as per Vth Bipartite Settlement or she had been retired by appellant Bank — Compulsorily retirement was imposed by appellant and it was not voluntarily sought by respondent and such contingency was not contemplated by circular issued on 4-11-1995 — She was rightly held entitled to pension.

       Held : Now, the question is whether the respondent was deemed to have voluntarily retired as per Vth Bipartite Settlement or she has been retired by the appellant-bank. There can be two class of persons; one who sought voluntary retirement or the other who was deemed to have voluntarily retired. It is not the case of the voluntary retirement but she was made to retire by the order of the management. Therefore, she does not fall in either of the two categories. The respondent (herein) remained absent because of her ill-health and she submitted her application for extension of leave on medical ground but the management instead of taking sympathetic view, retired the respondent from the services of the bank. As she does not fall either of the above two categories, this is the third category which is not contemplated in the regulations. (Para 8)

       In the present case, the respondent (herein) submitted her explanation and sought extension of time on medical ground. But the management of the Bank instead of considering the matter sympathetically, ordered for premature retirement under the purported exercise of Clause 17(a). It is not the case that she had voluntarily retired but it is a case where the bank has retired her as a measure of punishment because they were not satisfied by her explanation. Therefore, it is not a case which can be covered by the clarification issued by the Bank and it cannot be deemed that she has voluntarily retired. The contingency in the present case is not covered by the aforesaid Circular dated 4.11.1995. In the present case the respondent has put in almost 20 years’ of service and has taken leave on medical ground which is being denied to her. In Clause 17 (a) what is contemplated is that a person who deliberately does not join the office and leaves the office without any satisfactory explanation, then it is open for the management to resort to Clause 17(a). But in the present case, the facts are very glaring that incumbent has put in 20 years of service and unfortunately she fell sick and sought for extension of leave on medical ground, that was denied to her. Therefore, it is not the case of the abandoned service or she did not send any reply to the notice sent by the management. However, she has made a humble reply to satisfy her authorities, that taking leave was beyond her control, i.e. ill health. But the authorities retired her prematurally and denied the pension of 20 years of service. Therefore, this kind of action is unfair, arbitrary which cannot be countenanced. In fact the order passed by the bank clearly states it is not the case of premature retirement and it is not the case that she has sought voluntary retirement or premature retirement. It is the bank who has retired her and that kind of contingency is not covered in the clarification made by the bank. It is a case of deemed voluntary retirement forced on her. The said contingency is not covered under the aforesaid order of authorities. It was a forced retirement by the respondent-bank. (Para 9)

       But so far as the present controversy is concerned, the compulsory retirement/the premature retirement has been imposed by the appellant, it is not voluntarily sought by the respondent. It is a clear case of compulsory retirement ordered by the Management and that contingency has not been contemplated in the circular issued on 4.11.1995. Therefore, in any case, we are of the opinion that she could not be denied the benefit of her 20 years’ of service when she comes within the pension scheme that she was employed prior to 1986 and retired before 29.9.95. Therefore, she is entitled to pension. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench of High Court is correct and there is no merit in this appeal filed by the Bank. Hence, the same is dismissed. (Para 12)