Gujarat High Court
Kirit Harendrabhai Raval - Clerk Gr-2, ... vs Reserve Bank Of India (Rbi) on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10965/2015 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10965 of 2015
==========================================================
KIRIT HARENDRABHAI RAVAL - CLERK GR-2, CNEX-GR2
Versus
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (RBI)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAJESH P RAVAL FOR MR HARDIK H PANDIT(5820) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR AMAR N BHATT(160) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 09/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed praying to quash and set aside the decision of the RBI dated 5.6.2008 and further to declare that the petitioner is entitled to pension from the date of his voluntary retirement.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are such that the petitioner was appointed as clerk Grade II/coin examiner Grade II in the respondent bank on 30.2.1978; the petitioner gave option for pension in the prescribed format, as required by the respondent on 27.10.2000; the petitioner submitted his resignation from service on 21.2.2001, which was accepted vide order dated 19.3.2001; as the petitioner was not given the pension, he preferred Special Civil Application No.13048 of 2003 before this Court, which was heard finally and was disposed of on 30.1.2008 with a liberty to approach the concerned authority with appropriate Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 00:59:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10965/2015 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined representation; the petitioner submitted representation to the respondent on 26.3.2008, which was rejected vide order dated 5.6.2008 and therefore this petition is filed.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has put in 23 years of service and had also submitted the pension option and that he had used the word resignation instead of retirement by bonafide mistake; that the respondent has rejected the representation by saying that the petitioner had proceeded on leave from 18.2.1999 to go abroad and in the year 2000, he had sent option for pension and that he resigned from the bank with effect from 21.2.2001 and also requested for waiver of mandatory period of notice of one month; that the notice period was three months in case of voluntary retirement; that the respondent accepted the resignation with effect from 21.2.2001 and mandatory period was waived and therefore the pension was denied considering the resignation as forfeiture of service. He submitted that the petitioner was in fact eligible and entitled to avail benefits of pension scheme by opting for voluntary retirement at the relevant time, however, as the petitioner has mentioned the word resignation, it has come in his way in availing the benefits of pension. He submitted that the Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 00:59:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10965/2015 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined petitioner preferred petition before this Court, which was disposed of with a liberty to approach the respondent with appropriate representation and also issued certain directions to consider the same sympathetically and communicate the decision to the petitioner within stipulated time. However, the respondent did not take a positive view on the representation. He, therefore, submitted that this petition be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent- RBI has submitted that this petition is suffering from delay and laches as the decision dated 5.6.2008 is sought to be challenged by way of this petition in the year 2015 i.e. after a delay of more than seven years. He submitted that no discretionary relief can be granted where the petitioner chooses to sit over a matter and then wakes up only after a decision of the Court.
6. On merits, learned advocate for the respondent-RBI has submitted that by letter dated 21.2.2001 of the petitioner, the petitioner tendered his `resignation'; that the mandatory notice period in case of resignation is one month and for voluntary retirement, it is 90 days, which period can be waived, if requested. The petitioner has requested the RBI to waive 30 days notice period which is required in case of Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 00:59:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10965/2015 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined `resignation', which was accepted by the RBI on 19.3.2001 and the mandatory period of one month notice, as requested by the petitioner, was waived and therefore, the petitioner has resigned and not voluntarily retired from the service and therefore no pension can be granted. He further submitted that the petitioner remained absent from service without leave from 18.4.1999 to 21.2.2001 and he migrated to USA and his resignation was tendered from USA on 21.2.2001. He, therefore, submitted that the case of the petitioner that by mistake, he used the word `resignation' instead of `retired' is an afterthought. He, therefore, submitted that this petition is required to be dismissed.
7. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the following decisions:
(1) C.Jacob V/s Director of Geology and Mining and Another reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115.
(2) A.P.Steel ReRolling Mill Ltd. V/s State of Kerala and Others reported in (2007) 2 SCC 725. (3) M.R.Prabhakar and Others V/s Canara Bank and Others reported in (2012) 9 SCC 671.
(4) Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited and Others reported in (2019) 4 SCC 479. (5) Bses Yamuna Power Limited V/s Ghanshyam Chand Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 00:59:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10965/2015 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined Sharma and Another reported in (2020) 3 SCC 346. (6) Reserve Bank of India and Another V/s Cecil Dennis Solomin and Another reported in (2004) 9 SCC 461.
8. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
9. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.13048 of 2003 before this Court, which was dismissed for default and subsequently restored. Thereafter, the said petition was disposed of on 30.1.2008, the said petition was disposed of with direction to the RBI to consider the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred representation dated 26.3.2008, which was considered and rejected by RBI on 5.6.2008. This petition is filed on 26.4.2015 i.e. after about seven years from the date of rejection of the said representation. There is no explanation, much less, sufficient explanation for such delay, coming on the record and even the learned advocate for the petitioner could not point out any sufficient cause for such delay. Therefore, this petition is required to be dismissed only on this ground of delay and laches.
10. Even on merits, it transpires from the record that Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 00:59:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10965/2015 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined the petitioner tendered resignation on 21.2.2001 and the mandatory period of notice for resignation is one month and for voluntary retirement it is 90 days. The RBI accepted the voluntary resignation of the petitioner and waived the mandatory notice period of one month, as requested by the petitioner. Therefore, the say of the petitioner that the petitioner has, by mistake, mentioned resignation instead of voluntary retirement does not inspire confidence, in view of the fact that the petitioner has mentioned the word `resignation' and also prayed to waive the notice period of one month in his application, which means the petitioner was praying for resignation and not voluntary retirement. Therefore also, no fault can be found in the decision of the respondent-RBI.
11. In view of the above and in view of the principles laid down in the judgments cited by learned advocate for the respondent-RBI, when the petitioner has sit over a matter for years together and preferred this petition after a delay of about seven years and that the resignation was tendered by the petitioner from USA, as can be seen from the record, after remaining absence from service without leave for certain period, with a permission to waive the notice period of one month, which was accepted by the respondent-RBI, such prayer of the petitioner to consider his resignation as Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 00:59:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10965/2015 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined voluntary retirement, after such a long delay, cannot be accepted and therefore this petition is required to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 00:59:22 IST 2025