Delhi High Court
Siya Ram Mishra vs Central Bank Of India & Anr. on 2 December, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 5957/1999
% 2nd December, 2013
SIYA RAM MISHRA ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ambika Ray, Adv.
VERSUS
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. R.S.Mathur, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Counsel for the petitioner was heard at length. At the stage of
dictation of the judgment, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the
petitioner, who is present in Court, states that petitioner will be satisfied if he
receives all the superannuation benefits taking as final and in terms of the
order of the disciplinary authority dated 31.12.1996.
2. As per the order of the disciplinary authority dated
31.12.1996/22.1.1997, petitioner was imposed the punishment of removal
from services, however it was specifically with superannuation benefits. In
WPC 5957/1999 Page 1 of 5
view of the fact that the penalty order itself states that petitioner is entitled to
all superannuation benefits, the effect of the penalty order would be that
petitioner in fact would at best stand normally retired from the date of
passing of the order dated 31.12.1996. Accordingly, petitioner will get
superannuation benefits as if he stands retired on 22.1.1997.
3. Counsel appearing for respondent no.1-bank states that respondent
no.1-bank surely has to comply with the penalty order by paying the
superannuation benefits in accordance with the rules as payable to the
petitioner, and as per his information petitioner has received the
superannuation benefits. This however is disputed and denied by the
petitioner.
4. Accordingly, let the petitioner within a period of two weeks from
today make a representation before the competent authority of the
respondent no.1-bank, with a copy to the counsel for respondent no.1,as to
what would be the superannuation benefits which the petitioner would be
entitled to as if he stood normally retired on 22.1.1997. Respondent no.1-
bank will within a period of four weeks of receipt of this representation
examine the claim of the petitioner and respond by stating as to what is the
amount which is already paid to the petitioner as superannuation benefits if
WPC 5957/1999 Page 2 of 5
the petitioner normally retired on 22.1.1997. In case any amount more than
what is paid by the respondent no.1 as per the response of the respondent
no.1 is still claimed by and is payable to the petitioner, then, petitioner will
be given a personal hearing by the competent authority to explain his case as
to why a particular higher amount is payable to the petitioner. In terms of
the hearing given to the petitioner, the competent authority will pass a
speaking order as to why any amount which is claimed by the petitioner is
payable or not payable taking the order of the disciplinary authority dated
22.1.1997 as correct.
5. If there still remain after passing of the speaking order any issues of
calculations or non-payment, then the petitioner will be entitled to approach
the Court by showing the entitlement of the petitioner to additional amounts
towards superannuation benefits which according to the petitioner are
payable and as per respondent no.1 are not payable.
6. Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is not receiving
pension which a person would get on his ordinary superannuation from the
bank. To this counsel for respondent no.1-bank states that in case petitioner
is not getting the pension, then in the representation petitioner may claim
pension as per the applicable rules including Rule 31 of the Pension Rules.
WPC 5957/1999 Page 3 of 5
It is clarified by this Court that petitioner is now entitled, irrespective of any
circular/notification of the respondent no.1-bank, to apply for pension to the
respondent no.1-bank within a period of six weeks from today if a pension
scheme was prevalent in the Bank as on 31.12.1996/22.1.1997. The date for
submission of the application, if already expired, will stand extended for a
period of six weeks from today for the petitioner to make the necessary
application for pension accompanied by the necessary documents.
Respondent no.1-bank will respond to this application within a period of
four weeks thereafter specifying if any additional document has to be
furnished or any act has to be done by the petitioner under the pension
scheme for the petitioner to get pension. Petitioner on compliance with the
requirements of the pension scheme in terms of the directions issued by the
bank, will be paid pension as payable to a person who ordinarily
superannuated on 22.1.1997 because that is what is stated in the disciplinary
authority order dated 22.1.1997. It is again clarified that in case petitioner
has any grievance because of non-payment of superannuation benefits, in
terms of the order dated 22.1.1997, petitioner can approach the Court at the
relevant stage with his grievance by filing independent proceedings.
WPC 5957/1999 Page 4 of 5
7. Finally, I reiterate and hold that the impugned order dated
31.12.1996/22.1.1997 is not a normal order for removal of services but is an
order of superannuation as on 22.1.1997 i.e petitioner will be treated as
having a normal superannuation on 22.1.1997 with all benefits flowing
taking his date of retirement as 22.1.1997.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
directions, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
DECEMBER 02, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
