Bombay High Court
Eshwar vs The Union Of India on 28 November, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 WP.2435.03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2435 OF 2003
Eshwar s/o Vitthal Narnaware,
aged about 57 years, Occ.
Retired, R/o Plot No. 57, N.I.T.
Vishwakarma Nagar, Nagpur-27. ... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1) The Union of India,
Ministry of Finance (Banking),
Room No. 35, Jeevan Deep
Building, Parliament Street,
New Delhi, through its
Secretary.
2) The Union of India,
Ministry of Law, New Delhi,
through its Secretary.
3) The Union of India,
Ministry of Labour, Shram
Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi,
through its Secretary.
4) Bank of India, Express
Towers, Nariman Point,
Mumbai, through its
Managing Director.
5) Bank of India, Station
Road, Kingsway,
Nagpur, through its
Zonal Manager,
6) Indian Banks Association
World Trade Centre,
::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2016 00:37:44 :::
2 WP.2435.03
6th Floor, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai 400 005,
through its Secretary. ... RESPONDENTS.
Mr. N.R. Pathrabe, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A.M. Joshi, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3,
Mr. U.A. Gosawi, Advocate for Respondent nos. 4 & 5.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : NOVEMBER 28, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.R.GAVAI, J).
1] Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2] The petitioner has approached this Court contending therein
that upon his compulsory retirement, the petitioner is entitled to 100%
pension.
3] This is a second round of litigation. In the first round, the
petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority
imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement had approached this
Court by way of Writ Petition No. 4087/01. The said petition came to be
dismissed by the judgment and order of this Court dated 12.12.2001.
Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had approached the Apex Court.
3 WP.2435.03
The Apex Court dismissed the S.L.P. on 20.9.2002.
4] The Deputy General Manager (T.B.D. & HRDD) has passed
an order on 14.6.2001 and decided to fix the pension of the petitioner at
an amount which was not less than 2/3rd and was less than the full
admissible pension.
5]
Mr. N.R. Pathrabe, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
submits that since the petitioner is compulsorily retired, the pension that
ought to have been paid to the petitioner should have been 100%.
6] We find that the contention as raised is without any
substance. It will be relevant to refer to Regulation No. 33 of the Bank
of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, which reads as
under :-
"33. Compulsory Retirement Pension -
[1] An employee compulsorily retired from service as
a penalty on or after 1st day of November, 1993 in terms of
Discipline and Appeal Regulation or settlement by the
authority higher than the authority competent to impose
such penalty may be granted pension at the rate not less
than two third and not more than full pension admissible to
him on the date of his compulsorily retirement if otherwise
he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that
4 WP.2435.03
date.
[2] Whether in the case of a bank employee the
competent authority passes an order [whether original,
appellate or in exercise of power of review] awarding a
pension less than the full compensation pension admissible
under these regulations, the Board of Directors shall be
consulted before such order is passed.
[3] ................."
The perusal of the Regulation would reveal that when a penalty of
compulsory retirement from service is imposed upon an employee in
terms of Discipline & Appeal Regulations or settlement by the authority,
then the authority higher than the authority competent to impose such
penalty may grant pension at the rate not less than 2/3rd and not more
than full pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsorily
retirement, if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on
superannuation on that date. The perusal of sub-regulation (2) would
reveal that, however, prior to doing so, the Board of Directors is required
to be consulted before such an order is passed.
7] The perusal of the document filed on behalf of the
respondent Bank along with the affidavit would reveal that prior to
passing an order on 14.6.2001 thereby determining the pension of the
5 WP.2435.03
petitioner at the rate which was not less than 2/3rd and also less than
the full admissible pension, the matter was placed before the Board of
the Bank and the Board of the Bank has granted approval to the same.
8] It is sought to be argued by Shri Pathrabe, the learned
Counsel for the petitioner, that the Zonal Authority who has acted as the
Disciplinary Authority was not competent authority and, therefore, the
determination of the pension by the Deputy General Manager is not in
consonance with the said Regulations. We find that such a contention
cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage. All these contentions were
available to the petitioner when the petitioner had challenged the order
of the Disciplinary Authority by filing Writ Petition before this Court. This
Court had found no merit in the petition. The petition was dismissed.
S.L.P. was also dismissed by the Apex Court.
9] In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that
such an argument cannot be permitted. Undisputedly, the order of
compulsory retirement was passed by the Zonal Officer, who was the
Disciplinary Authority. Undisputedly, the Deputy General Manager is an
authority superior to the Zonal Manager. As such, under Regulation
33(1) the Deputy General Manager, who is an authority superior to the
Zonal Manager was very much competent to pass an order of
6 WP.2435.03
determination of pension. Undisputedly, the order of compulsory
retirement from service by penalty was passed by the Disciplinary
Authority. The same has been upheld by this Court. The S.L.P. is also
dismissed. Undisputedly, the pension is also fixed within the
parameters as laid down under sub-rule (1) of Regulation No. 33.
10] In the result, no merit is found in the petition. Same is
dismissed. Rule stands discharged. There will be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
J.
