Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41871
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.M. MANOJ, J
A.K.MOHANAN – Appellant
Versus
BANK OF BARODA – Respondent
WP(C) 35865/2015
SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY, SRI.K.V.GEORGE, SRI.P.S.GIREESH, SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, K.M.ANEESH, ADARSH KUMAR, BIJU VARGHESE, ABRAHAM DILEEP CHANDRAN, K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM)
Medical leave should count towards qualifying service for retirement benefits, as per relevant regulations.
Headnote:(A) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 2(A)(1) - Pension Regulations of Bank of Baroda - Additional Retirement Benefits - The petitioner, a retired bank employee, claimed additional retirement benefits after completing 30 years of service, which was denied due to absence on medical leave. The court found that the leave taken for medical reasons should count towards qualifying service, thus entitling the petitioner to the benefits. (Paras 2, 4, 11)
(B) Definition of Service - The court emphasized that the definition of service under the relevant regulations does not stipulate that the service must be active, and the leave taken on medical grounds should be considered as part of the continuous service. (Paras 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, who retired after 30 years of service due to health issues, was denied additional retirement benefits on the grounds of not completing the required service due to medical leave. (Paras 2-6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had indeed completed 30 years of service, and the leave taken should not disqualify him from receiving additional retirement benefits. The denial was set aside, and the bank was directed to reconsider the claim. (Paras 11)
Issues: The main issue was whether the period of medical leave should be counted towards the 30 years of qualifying service for additional retirement benefits. (Paras 4, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence due to medical grounds does not negate the completion of service and should be considered in determining eligibility for benefits. The relevant regulations support the notion that all leave should count towards qualifying service. (Paras 8, 11)
Result: Writ petition is disposed of, directing the bank to reconsider the claim for additional retirement benefits.
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 09th day of October, 2024)
This case, the petitioner, a retired employee of the 1st respondent bank, expired on 23.02.2018, during the pendancy of the writ petition. Then, his wife got impleaded as additional 2nd petitioner.
2. The grievance voiced in this writ petition is with respect denial additional retirement benefit as provided under Ext.P5. Under Part 2 chapter 1 Terminal Benefits Clause D Additional Retirement Benefits, which is as follows:-
An award staff member on Retirement/Voluntary Retirement/Death shall be eligible for additional retirement benefit, provided he had completed -30-years of service in Bank. However, in case of dismissal, discharge, termination, compulsory retirement and resignation additional retirement benefit shall not be payable, irrespective of any number of years of service.
3. On retirement after 30 years of service at the 1st respondent bank, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 representation for additional retirement benefit. In fact the petitioner took voluntary retirement on completion of 30 years on medical grounds as he had undergone two surgeries pursuant to stroke occurred on 07.10.2010. He was paralysed, lost his left eye sight and also suffered from post stroke seizures. Thereby, he availed leave on loss of pay from 09.05.2011 to 04.01.2012 for a period of 241 days on medical grounds. In fact, the petitioner joined service on 05.12.1981 in the category of award staff as a clerk . Later he retired from service on 04.01.2012 on taking voluntary retirement due to health reasons as provided in Ext.P1 to P4.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that, though he completed 30 years service, his claim for additional retirement benefit has been declined by Ext.P7 stating that he has not completed 30 years of service in the bank as on the date of relieving under VRS, whereby not eligible for payment of additional retirement benefit. It is contended by the petitioner that, such denial of additional retirement benefit is against the purpose and intent provided under Ext.P5.
5. In response to that, a counter afÏdavit is filed by the respondent bank, wherein it is stated that, the petitioner was on leave on loss of pay from 09.05.2011 to 04.01.2012 for a period of 241 days on medical ground and has not attended the branch or ofÏce during this period. Thereby, he has not completed 30 years of service as on date of relieving of services on voluntary retirement.
6. It is further clarified in Ext.R(1)a circular that the eligibility of Additional Retirement Benefit to an employee who had joined the service as an award staff member and retired as award staff on completing 30 years of service in the bank. In the case in hand, due to absence of service on loss of pay the petitioner has not completed 30 years of service. That is why, he is not eligible for Additional Retirement Benefit.
7. In response to that, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner managed to complete 30 years due to medical condition as he was affected with stroke on 07.10.2010 and has undergone two major surgeries in the brain on 16.10.2010 and 18.01.2011. Consequent to that, he suffered with paralysis of the left hand and left leg, lost left eye vision, Oedema over the left hand and both legs, Diabetic mellitus, Hypertension and post stroke seizures. It is not an unauthorized absence or a deliberate attempt to abstain from the work. It was purely on the medical ground, he has availed proper leave on authentication. Under such circumstances that period cannot be excluded from the entire service period which comes to 30 years from the date of joining to the date of relieving i.e., between 05.12.1981 to 04.01.2012.
8. It is further stated that as per Ext.P6, the petitioner contended all these things before the Chief Executive OfÏcer of Bank Of Baroda wherein it is specifically stated that :-
1) The scheme for additional retirement benefit does not stipulate that the service of 30 years shoul
