Back
Karnataka High Court
Satya Srinath - Appellant
Versus
Syndicate Bank Assistantgeneral Manager, Bangalore - Respondent
Decided On : 04-07-03
W.A. : 6017 of 1999
SYNDICATE BANK (EMPLOYEES ) PENSION REGULATIONS, 1995 - Regulations 2(y)(c) r/w 32, 34 & 3, Bipartite settlement -clauses 2(2)(x), 3, 17A(a), 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, Syndicate Bank Circular dated 4-11-95 -Appellant absenting from work -Bank issuing notice -reply by appellant -appellant suffering from serious ailment -offering explanation -denial of pension -ground, appellant deemed to have voluntarily vacated/retired from service by virtue of Bipartite Settlement -held, cessation of service of the appellant brought about by the order of the bank and rejected the explanation offered and refused to grant time to resume duties and thus, there is nothing voluntary in the appellant s retirement. Appellant entitled for pension.
[S. R. Nayak & K. Ramanna, JJ.] - Under the Bipartite settlement, every absence of 90 days or more does not result in automatic cessation of service Even after such absence, the employee is entitled to continue in the employment. The employment is put an end to only where the employer issues a notice of its intention to declare that the employee, has retired voluntarily and in response to such a notice the employee either fails to submit explanation or the explanation submitted by the employee is held to be not satisfactory by the employer. Until the employer passes the final order, the employment continues. Therefore, it should be held that the cessation of the service of the appellant is a case of premature retirement.
Cases Referred : (1983) 1 SCC 305; (1983) 1 SCC 228; (1969) 3 SCC 95; AIR 1964 SC 1271; (1999) 4 SCC 293; (1990) 4 SCC 27; (1993) 2 SCC 75; (1999) 3 SCC 278
Followed:
(1997) 1 SCC 514; (1997) 2 SCC 28.
Note: For literal meaning of the legal maxims the Universally accepted authority by Herbert Broom is referred
Abandonment
WORDS, PHRASES AND LEGAL MAXIMS - In the context of office -to constitute -there must be total or complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same.
Cessation of services.
Articles 14 & 16 - Articles 14 & 16 and Syndicate Bank (Employees ) Pension Regulations, 1995 -Regulations 2(y)(c) r/w 32, 34 & 3, Bipartite settlement -clauses 2(2)(x), 3, 17A(a), 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, Syndicate Bank Circular dated 4-11-95 -Cessation of service of the appellant brought about by the order of the bank and rejected the explanation offered and refused to grant time to resume duties thus, there is nothing voluntary in the appellant s retirement. Appellant is entitled for pension.
[S. R. Nayak & K. Ramanna, JJ.] - In deciding the entitlement of an employee for pension and other pensionary benefits, the Court should necessarily bear in mind the well settled position in law that where an employee put in more than minimum qualifying service for pension under the relevant Regulations or the Rules, even in case of resignation after putting in the qualifying service, the employee would be entitled to pension and otherwise the rule denying the pension merely on the ground that the employee has resigned even though the employee has put in required service prescribed under the relevant Regulations or the Rules, will be violative of Article 14 postulates and the provision of Article 16 of the Constitution.
Cases Referred : (1983) 1 SCC 305; (1983) 1 SCC 228; (1969) 3 SCC 95; AIR 1964 SC 1271; (1999) 4 SCC 293; (1990) 4 SCC 27; (1993) 2 SCC 75; (1999) 3 SCC 278;
Followed: (1997) 1 SCC 514; (1997) 2 SCC 28.
( 2 ) THE events leading to the passing of the impugned order were that the petitioner was an employee of Syndicate Bank, the respondent herein on the ground that the Appellant remained absent unauthorisedly with effect from 11. 03. 1992 a notice dated 18. 11. 92 was issued to her calling upon her either to report back for duty or submit explanation for her absence within 30 days, ie. on or before 21. 12. 92. The Appellant was also informed that if she failed to comply with the above direction, she would be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the service of the Bank on expiry of 30 days from the date of notice in terms of Clause 17 (a) of the V Bipartite Settlement. The Appellant replied to the notice on 17. 12. 92. According to the bank s management, as the explanation of the Appellant was not satisfactory, the Bank sent a letter dated 10. 12. 1992 informing the appellant that she was deemed to have voluntarily retired from service with effect from 23. 12. 92 in terms of Clause 17 (a) of the V Bipartite settlement and she had accordingly ceased to be in the service of the Bank with effect from that date. At this stage itself, it is pertinent to note that the Appellant in her explanation stated that due to illness, she was unable to report for duty immediately and sought extension of time to report for duty. It was also her case that she was forced to be away from the duties since 11. 03. 1992 due to her serious illhealth and she had been submitting leave applications supported by medical certificates promptly. Rejecting the above explanation submitted by the Appellant as not satisfactory and rejecting the prayer of the Appellant for extension of time for resuming duty, the Bank passed an order dated 30. 12. 1992. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant filed W. P. No. 1259 of 1995 in this Court seeking a direction to the respondent-Bank to reinstate her into service with all benefits. This court by order dated 23. 1. 1995 dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that there was inordinate delay in assailing the validity of the order dated 30. 12. 92. It is stated that that order was allowed to become final.
( 3 ) THE Syndicate Bank (Employee s) Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short Regulations) came into force on 29. 9. 1995 on publication in the official gazettee. The management of the Bank issued a circular dated 4. 11. 1995 stating that the Regulations were applicable to the following categories of the employees:i) Those who were in the service of the Bank on or after 1. 1. 1986 but had retired before 29. 9. 1995. ii) Those who are in the service of the Bank before 29. 9. 1995 and continue to be in the service of the Bank on or after 29. 9. 1995. iii) Those who join the services of the Bank on or after 29. 9. 1995. iv) to (viii) omitted as not relevant. xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxit is clarified that the Ex-employees who have voluntarily retired in terms of Banks Service Regulations Clause No. 19 (1) or deemed to have voluntarily retired in terms of Bipartite settlement, between 1. 1. 1986 and 30. 10. 1993 are not eligible for pension under the pension Regulations 1995. It may be noted that regulation 29 of Pension Regulations 1995 provided for voluntary retirement of the employees who have completed 20 years of qualifying service by giving notice of not less than 3 months, in writing, subject to the conditions laid down therein.
( 4 ) THE said Circular also provided that ex-employees who have not exercised their option for pension under the Regulations earlier, could exercise their option for pension under the scheme within 120 days from 29. 9. 1995. The Appellant on 28. 12. 1995 exercised her option under the pension scheme and the same was rejected by the ba
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
