Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honourable Mrs Justice J. NISHA BANU
Dr.B.Kalaivannan – Appellant
Versus
The Chairman Cum Managing – Respondent
WP/41069/2015
VOLUNTARY CESSATION OF EMPLOYMENT - BANKING - PENSIONARY BENEFITS - [The court held that the petitioner's unauthorized absence from work and failure to respond to notices from the bank constituted voluntary cessation of employment, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to pensionary benefits.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of Indian Bank, applied for a transfer to Pune in 2006. However, the bank did not approve his request. In March 2007, the petitioner stopped attending work without permission. The bank issued several notices asking him to return to work, but the petitioner did not respond. The bank then issued a circular on January 10, 2009, treating the petitioner's absence as voluntary cessation of employment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned his job by failing to report to work without permission and failing to respond to the bank's notices. The court also found that the bank had followed proper procedures in issuing the circular treating the petitioner's absence as voluntary cessation of employment.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's unauthorized absence from work and failure to respond to notices from the bank constituted voluntary cessation of employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the 8th Bipartite Settlement, which allowed the bank to treat an employee's unauthorized absence as voluntary cessation of employment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, holding that he was not entitled to pensionary benefits.
W.P.No.41069 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 15.11.2022
PROUNOUNCED ON : 06.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
W.P.No.41069 of 2015
and
W.M.P.No.17872 of 2021
Dr.B.Kalaivannan
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman cum Managing Director
Indian Bank, Head Office
Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai-600 014
2.The General Manager
Indian Bank Corporate Office
Avvai Shanmugam Salai
Royapettah, Chennai-600 014
3.The Assistant General Manager
HRM Department
Indian Bank, Head Office
Avvai Shanmugam salai
Royapettah, Chennai-600 014
..Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.41069 of 2015
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
entire records connected with the impugned order of the 3rd respondent
vide their Circular No.HRM:105:2008-09 dated 10.01.2009, and quash
the same and direct the respondents to sanction the pensionary benefits,
effective from 18.09.2008 and other legal and terminal benefits to the
petitioner.
For Petitioner :
Mr.S.N.Ravichandran
For Respondents :
Mr.Kalayanaraman
for M/s.Aiyar and Dolia
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order of the 3rd
respondent dated 10.01.2009 and seeks to quash the same and to direct
the respondents to sanction the pensionary benefits, effective from
18.09.2009 and other legal and terminal benefits to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner joined Indian Bank on 23.04.1984 as Clerk/Shroff
at Ocheri Branch, Vellore District. He opted for “Pension Scheme” on
23.03.1996 under the Indian Banm (Employees) Pensions Regulations,
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.41069 of 2015
1995. The petitioner applied for temporary transfer to any one of the
Pune Branches, vide letter dated 22.06.2006. But according to the
petitioner his name was mentioned in the Voluntary Cessation of
Employment Circular dated 10.01.2009, even without properly serving
the notice, he was terminated from service.
3. According to the petitioner, his application before the Public
Information Officer, first and second appeals did not yield any fruitful
result as the respondent bank was not in a position to provide the basic
details sought by him regarding Voluntary Cessation of Employment.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner neither submitted any resignation voluntarily nor received
any notice or dismissal order from the Bank. The bank officials acted in a
very casual and discriminatory manner. No notice is served on the
petitioner and the bank acted unilaterally by publishing a circular
including the petitioner's name under voluntary cessation of employment
and there was no act of voluntary resignation by the petitioner.
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.41069 of 2015
5. The learned counsel for the respondents filed counter affidavit. It
is averred that on 11.05.2006 the Bank had released a Circular on
“Samadhan Scheme”. On transfer requests of award staff, Bank has
entered into a settlement under ID Act. According to the respondent
Bank, such application for request of transfer was made by the petitioner
which request will be considered as per the settlement only.
6. The respondent-Bank would submit that from March 2007
onwards, without any permission or proper prior intimation, the
petitioner had unilaterally stopped attending office. In terms of the Bi-
partite settlement, the Bank issued two notices dated 26.06.2008 and
06.08.2008 asking the Petitioner to return to work, which were returned
to the Bank marked “Not claimed/returned to Sender”. Again a letter (3rd
notice) was sent to the petitioner's residence directly by the Branch,
asking him to report for work within 30 days. As there was no reply
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
