Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
Patel Govindbhai Manilal Through Durgeshkumar Govindbhai Patel - Appellant
Versus
Dena Bank (Now Bank of Baroda) - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 11611 of 2019
Decided On : 30-06-2022
Pension Regulations, 1995 - (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 -Disciplinary authority -Maximum service counted for full pension -whether to grant 2/3rd or 100%, learned advocate, would submit that Bank has to follow principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, by only granting 2/3rd pension, in effect respondent Bank has effected a pension cut of 33.33% in case of a compulsorily retired employee and therefore, decision is bad –Held, This Court finds no reason to remitting back matter, once again, to concerned authorities -A reference, in this regard may be made to observation of learned Single Judge, while remanding matter to appellate authority vide Annexure 2 to connected writ petition passed, questioning any loss, which has actually incurred by Bank, as Bank could not answer statement made by petitioner that no loss has actually been incurred as all loans, advanced by petitioner, were recovered - Even after remand, loss could not be quantified as it has not been stated before learned Single Judge that even appellate authority has come to such conclusion - However, Court would refrain ourselves from making any comment on appellate order having been passed on merit upholding penalty of compulsory retirement for reason that same is under challenge in a different writ petition and, thus, was not to be decided before writ Court -Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
2. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner was appointed with the Dena Bank on 01.07.1977. He was thereafter promoted from time to time and pursuant to disciplinary proceedings, by an order dated 06.02.2001 an order of reversion was passed. The order was confirmed and on a challenge made before this Court, the petition was allowed. It appears that the Bank thereafter, by an order dated 13.12.2003, pursuant to a separate inquiry and a charge sheet, passed an order of compulsory retirement of service from the Bank with immediate effect and without notice. The order was passed in accordance with powers under Regulation 7 (3) of the Dena Bank Officers' Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The petitioner at the relevant point of time, having compulsorily retired did not opt for the Pension Scheme under the Pension Regulations of 1995. He was, therefore, paid retirement benefits including leave encashment, gratuity and provident fund. According to the petitioner, he was paid an amount of Rs.3,17,770/-.
2.1 A Scheme was floated by the Dena Bank on 01.10.2018 giving an option of pension to those who were compulsorily retired between 29.09.1995 to 27.04.2010. The petitioner applied for the option on 29.10.2018, the option was accepted and a Pension Payment Order was issued on 04.04.2019. The petitioner was sanctioned 2/3rd of total pension being Rs.5,851/- This decision was taken by the Bank under Regulation 33 of Dena Bank (Employees' Regulations) 1995. This is the subject matter of challenge by the petitioner.
3. Mr. Hardik Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that on compulsory retirement, an employee can be granted pension at the rate not less than 2/3rd and not more than full pension. For taking a decision in context of the regulations whether to grant 2/3rd or 100%, Mr. Rawal, learned advocate, would submit that the Bank has to follow the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, by only granting 2/3rd pension, in effect the respondent Bank has effected a pension cut of 33.33% in case of a compulsorily retired employee and therefore, the decision is bad.
3.1 In support of his submission, Mr. Rawal, learned advocate, would rely on a decision passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9275 of 1997 and allied matters in the case of A.N. Puniwala vs. Bank of India, dated 25.04.2007 where according to Mr. Rawal, learned advocate, interpreting the regulations of a Bank of the same nature, this Court held that in exercising powers under the Rules in question and when discretion is given, an opportunity of hearing ought to be given to the concerned employee to satisfy the authority that in a given case withholding of the 33.33% of pension was not warranted. Mr. Hardik Rawal, learned advocate, would also rely on a decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore Thakur vs. Indian Bank., in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15264 of 2014 which was confirmed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 580 of 2016. The Division Bench relied on the decision in the case of Puniwala (supra). Mr. Rawal, learned advocate, would therefore submit that it is no longer a matter of dispute that while exercising discretion of reduction in pension, an oppor
Natural justice principles must be observed in the exercise of discretionary powers affecting employee pension rights, even if not explicitly mandated by regulations.
Withdrawal of pension without following principles of natural justice is unjustified. The competent authority must provide an opportunity for the pensioners to respond before taking any adverse decis....
The main legal point established is that the principle of natural justice must be observed even if there is no specific reference in the rule, especially if the consequence of the decision is going t....
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
