Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANIL KUMAR BHALLA & PETITIONER versus INDIAN BANK & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Anil Kumar Bhalla & Petitioner v. Indian Bank & Anr - CWP-18260-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 1985 (24 March 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition 18260 of 2004

Date of decision: 20.2.2006

Anil Kumar Bhalla ...

Petitioner

Versus

Indian Bank and another ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.S.NIJJAR.
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.S.SARON.

Present: Mr HS Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for the respondents.

S.S.SARON, J

The grievance of the petitioner in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is that he has not been granted superannuation benefits even though the order dated 24.7.2002 (Annexure P3) of his removal from service is `with superannuation benefits'.

The petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Indian Bank (respondent No.1) (Bank for short) on 17.9.1986. He was promoted as Assistant Manager and posted at Baroda in March 2001. On his request, he was reverted as Clerk and posted at Mohali Branch on 13.7.2001. During his service, he was served with charge sheet dated 10.10.2001 (Annexure P1). The petitioner filed his reply to the same. In any case, an inquiry was conducted on the charge that he had received Rs 2600/- from a customer but had not deposited the same in his savings account. On the basis of the inquiry conducted, the petitioner was found guilty of the charge and it was proposed to impose the punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits, vide letter dated 25.6.2002 (Annexure P2). The CWP 18260 of 2004

petitioner was afforded a personal hearing in terms of the said letter.

Ultimately, after hearing the petitioner on 24.7.2002 (Annexure P3), he was imposed the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits under Clause 19.6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 as amended and modified from time to time and as per Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002 applicable to the employees of the cadre of the petitioner in the Bank. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order imposing the punishment. The appellate authority, however, rejected his appeal on 19.2.2003. The petitioner also challenged his removal from service as well as the dismissal of his appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court where the matter is pending. The petitioner, however, made a claim for payment of pension which has been declined by letter dated 5.11.2003 (Annexure P4) with the observations that Regulation 22 of the Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995 (Regulations for short) envisages that resignation, dismissal, removal or termination of an employee from service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. Besides, in terms of Regulation 31 of the Regulations, an employee who is dismissed or removed or terminated from service, shall forfeit his pension.

On notice, written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. An objection has been raised that since the order of removal has already been challenged by raising an industrial dispute, the writ petition is not maintainable. Besides, the petitioner has been removed from service and he is not entitled for superannuation benefits, in view of Regulation 22.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that independent of the right of the petitioner to challenge the order of his removal from service CWP 18260 of 2004

as also dismissing his appeal, the petitioner is entitled to the superannuation benefits, as per the order dated 24.7.2002 (Annexure P3) itself whereby the penalty of `removal from service with superannuation benefits' has been imposed.

Learned counsel for the respondents, however, disputes the claim and submits that the petitioner is not entitled for superannuation benefits on account of his removal from service. Besides, the matter is under challenge before the Labour Court.

After giving our thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner has been imposed the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits. Under Clause 19.6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 as amended and modified from time to time and as per Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002 which is applicable to the petitioner, it is provided that an employee found guilty of gross misconduct may be compulsorily retired/removed from service/discharged with superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise at that stage and without disqualification from future employment. Clause 6 of the Memorandum of Settlement on disciplinary action reached at between the management of 52 A-Class Banks as represented by the Indian Banks Association and their workmen as represented by the All India Banks Association, National Confederation of Bank Employees, Indian National Bank Employees Federation on 10.4.2002, reads as under:- "6. An employee found guilty of gross misconduct may: a) be dismissed without notice; or

b) be removed from service with superannuation benefits i.e.

Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at CWP 18260 of 2004

the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment; or

c) be compulsorily retired with superannuation benefits i.e.

Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment; or ....."

In fact, the Memorandum dated 10.4.2002 is mentioned in the impugned order dated 24.7.2002 (Annexure P3) wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner has been imposed the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits under Clause 19.6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 as amended and modified from time to time and as per Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002. Therefore, we are of the view that the Bank having itself imposed the punishment in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002, it is bound by the same and the punishment of removal from service is covered by Clause 6(b) of the aforesaid Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002. In terms of the same, it is provided that in case an employee is found guilty of gross misconduct, punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and/or provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules and Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment may be imposed.

Therefore, the stand of the respondents that the petitioner has been removed from service which entails forfeiture of his entire past service and also forfeiture of pension in terms of Regulations 21 and 31, is not tenable. It is appropriate to mention here that it is specifically recorded in the order dated 24.7.2002 (Annexure P3) that the punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits has been imposed. The case of UCO Bank v.

CWP 18260 of 2004

Sanwar Mal 2004(3) SLR 629 (SC) cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is inapplicable to the case in hand. In the said case, the respondent who was an employee of the UCO Bank therein had resigned from service and then claimed pensionary benefits. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that resignation is an act of voluntarily severance of relationship of an employee and his employer for all purposes. It brings about complete cessation of master and servant relationship. The present is not a case of resignation. It is a case of imposition of punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits. Therefore, we are of the view that the stand taken by the respondents in declining the superannuation benefits on account of his removal from service is clearly devoid of any merit.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to grant superannuation benefits to the petitioner in terms of Clause 6(b) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002.

Nothing stated hereinbefore shall be taken as an expression of an opinion on the merits of the case pending between the parties before the Labour Court and only the superannuation benefits have been granted to the petitioner as a consequence of his removal from service.

( S.S. SARON )

JUDGE

20.2.2006. ( S.S.NIJJAR )

ASR JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.