2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 14638
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Ms Justice R.N.MANJULA
Capt. Sunil Sapre – Appellant
Versus
The Chairma and Managing Director – Respondent
Termination due to absence results in forfeiture of past service, barring claims for Voluntary Retirement.
Headnote:
Retirement - Employment Termination - Indian Overseas Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations - 22 - The court interpreted Rule 22 regarding forfeiture of service post-termination and established that the petitioner's past services were forfeited, thus denying his eligibility for Voluntary Retirement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an ex-employee of a bank, was terminated for unauthorized absence and later sought judicial direction for recognized Voluntary Retirement based on past service.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is eligible for Voluntary Retirement despite being terminated due to unauthorized absence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the termination under Rule 22 entails forfeiture of past service, thus the petitioner cannot claim benefits of Voluntary Retirement.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is dismissed.
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to treat the petitioner as retired on 18.08.2006 and to grant him all consequential benefits.
2. Heard Mr.Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Somasundaar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioner is an ex-employee of Indian Overseas Bank. He served as the Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army for 5 years from 25.08.1984 to 27.07.1990. He joined as the Security Officer in the respondent's Bank in the year 1990. Due to his health condition, the petitioner could not report duty from 01.05.2006 and hence, he was terminated from service on 18.08.2006 for not reporting to duty. However, the petitioner had given representation on 27.08.2019 to consider his case for Voluntarily Retirement as on 18.08.2006 but the same has not been considered so far. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. Mr.Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the petitioner's services in the Indian Army had also been included in the services he rendered in the respondent Bank, he would get the eligible years of service for accepting his Voluntary Retirement.
5. Mr.N.Somasundaar, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has been terminated from service from 18.08.2006 for having unauthorised absence from May 2006. Hence, the petitioner is not eligible for Voluntary Retirement because his past services will get forfeited. He further claims that the petitioner would fall under Rule 22(1) of the Indian Overseas Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations wherein it is stated as under:- "22. Forfeiture of Service :-
(1) Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits;
(2) An interruption in the service of a Bank employee entails forfeiture of his past service, except in the following cases, namely:-
(a) authorised leave of absence;
(b) suspension, where it is immediately followed by reinstatement, whether in the same or a different post, or where the bank employee dies or is permitted to retire or is retired on attaining the age of compulsory retirement while under suspension;
(c) transfer to non-qualifying service in an establishment under the control of the Government or Bank if such transfer has been ordered by a competent authority in the public interest;
(d) joining time while on transfer from one post to another. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-regulation (2), the appointing authority may, by order, commute retrospectively the periods of absence without leave as extraordinary leave.
(4)(a) In the absence of a specific indication to the contrary in the service record an interruption between two spells of service rendered by a bank employee shall be treated as automatically condoned and the pre-interruption service treated as qualifying service;
(b) Nothing in clause (a) shall apply to interruption caused by resignation, dismissal or removal from service.”
6. In support of the above contention, reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Punjab National Bank Vs.M.L.Kalra reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1102 wherein it is observed as under:-
“11. Regulation 22 of Pension Regulations reads as under :-
22. Forfeiture of service:
(1) Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits;
(2) An interruption in the service of a Bank employee entails forfeiture of his past service, except in the following cases, namely:-
(a) authorized leave of absence;
(b) suspension, where it is immediately followed by reinstatement, whether in the same or a different post, or where the bank employee dies or is permit