Kerala High Court
S.A.R. Menon vs The Board Of Director Of The Union Bank Of ... on 7 November, 2024
1
W.P.(C) No.415 of 2017
2024:KER:83288
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 415 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
S.A.R. MENON
AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. A. RAGHAVA MENON
HARI SREE, KALAMBUKATTU, MANNAM P.O,
KOTTAYAM 686 571
BY ADV.
SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE BOARD OF DIRECTOR OF THE UNION BANK
OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMANCENTRAL
OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT,
MUMBAI 400 021
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
UNION BANK OF INDIACENTRAL OFFICE,
UNION BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT,
MUMBAI 400 021
3 THE REGIONAL MANAGER
UNION BANK OF INDIAREGIONAL OFFICE,
UNION BANK BHAVAN, STATUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI
SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP
2
W.P.(C) No.415 of 2017
2024:KER:83288
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C) No.415 of 2017
2024:KER:83288
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.415 of 2017
------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was inducted as a cashier in the respondent Bank in the year 1971 and later promoted as an officer in 1979 and subsequently as a Branch Manager. While working as the Branch Manager, the petitioner was suspended on 28.06.1989 and later dismissed on 26.06.1992. Though an appeal was filed against the order of dismissal, that was also rejected.
2. In the year 1995, the 1st respondent Bank framed a pension scheme, i.e., Union Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995, produced as Ext.P1 in the writ petition. The petitioner points out that he would be entitled for compassionate allowance with reference to paragraph 31 of the said scheme. Though an application at Ext.P2 was presented seeking the afore benefits, by Ext.P3, the said claim stood rejected, essentially pointing out that the petitioner had caused substantial loss in excess of Rs.13 lakhs, and therefore, the petitioner may not be entitled for terminal benefits and 4 W.P.(C) No.415 of 2017 2024:KER:83288 compassionate allowance as claimed by him.
3. In the afore circumstances that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to grant compassionate allowance as also to disburse the terminal benefits.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.Sadchith P. Kurup, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.
5. Two issues arise for consideration in this writ petition.
6. The first issue is as regards the entitlement for the compassionate allowance as regards the petitioner herein. In this connection, clause 31 contains a cut-off date as regards the entitlement for the said benefits. The said cut-off date states that it is only those who have been dismissed / removed / terminated from service on or after 01.11.1993, that the question of extending the compassionate allowance arises. Here, in the case at hand, the petitioner was dismissed during 1992, and hence, by virtue of the cut-off date, the petitioner may not be entitled for the afore benefits. However, I notice that while issuing Ext.P3, the issue has not been addressed in the 5 W.P.(C) No.415 of 2017 2024:KER:83288 afore angle. Instead, the Bank has opposed the afore eligibility with reference to the financial loss caused by the petitioner. The question of financial loss caused by the employee is not a consideration in paragraph 13.
7. The second issue arising for consideration is as regards the claim for terminal benefits. In Ext.P3, as noticed earlier, the Bank has stated that the terminal benefits are just in excess of Rs.90,000/-, whereas the loss caused is in excess of Rs.13 lakhs, and therefore, that need not be paid. However, it is seen that the afore finding has been arrived at without putting the petitioner to notice.
8. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that, though the question of extension of compassionate allowance is purely at the discretion of the respondent Bank, the matter requires a revisit at the hands of the Bank.
Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of as under;
i. Ext.P3 issued by the respondent is set aside. ii. Respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim at Ext.P2 afresh, after granting the petitioner or his authorised representative an 6 W.P.(C) No.415 of 2017 2024:KER:83288 opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
iii. The question as to whether Ext.P1 would even apply to the petitioner can also be considered by the respondent Bank.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE anm 7 W.P.(C) No.415 of 2017 2024:KER:83288 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 415/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE UNION BANK OF INDIA(EMPLOYEES) PENSION REGULATION 1995 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DATED 28-09-2015 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 20-10-2015 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE ALL INDIA BANK EMPLOYEES CONFEDERATION DATED 04-05-2012 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1 COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 3.3.2009 IN OP NO- 1096/2009