Sudhir Kumar Mehrotra vs Punjab National Bank And Ors.
2019 Latest Caselaw 3559 Del

$~10

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                Date of decision: 01.08.2019
+      W.P.(C) 366/2019 & CM APPL. 1712/2019
       SUDHIR KUMAR MEHROTRA              ..... Petitioner
                   Through Mr.Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. with
                           Mr.Avinash Sharma, Mr.Madhav
                           Dadhich & Mr.Amit Gupta, Advs.

                          versus
       PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS.          ..... Respondents
                    Through Mr.Navin Kumar Jha, Adv. with
                            Mr.Julimoni Saikia, Adv.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                          J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction directing the

respondents to release the pension to the petitioner and the arrears of

pension with effect from 27.11.2009 in terms of Circular No. 06/2018 dated

07.06.2018 issued by the Respondent Bank.

2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent bank compulsorily retired

the petitioner from service in the year 2004 in public interest. On

07.06.2018, the Department of PF & Pension Fund of the respondent bank

issued a circular bearing No.06/2018 regarding second Option of Pension for

Compulsory Retired Officers/Employees. As the benefits were being

provided by the aforementioned circular, the Petitioner applied under the 2nd

Option of Pension to the Chief Manager of the PF &Pension Fund

Department, PNB, Dwarka, New Delhi.

3. The petitioner received a letter from PNB on 10.08.2018 regarding

inclusion of the petitioner's application under 2nd Pension Option, in which

Department of PF & Pension Fund of the respondent bank stated that since

the petitioner was retired from the Bank's service in public interest under the

PNB (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, the petitioner is not eligible to

exercise 2nd Pension Option in terms of Circular mentioned above. After

receiving the aforesaid letter from the Department of PF & Pension Fund of

the respondent bank, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 14.08.2018 to the

President/General Manager of the All India Punjab National Bank Officers

Association and also to the Chairman of the Punjab National Bank on

02.09.2018 regarding not considering petitioner's application for 2nd Option

of Pension.

4. Mr.Chetan Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

petitioner submits that the act(s) and omission(s) on the part of the

respondents Bank in not considering the petitioner without assigning any

reason as per the Circular mentioned above is illegal and arbitrary in nature.

Thus, the conduct of the respondent bank has resulted into gross violation of

Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned senior counsel further submitted that petitioner is a senior

citizen of aged about 72 years and was ex-employee of the respondent bank.

On 27.09.2004, the petitioner received a letter from the Competent

Authority of Special Review for continuation in bank service under the PNB

Officers Service Regulations, 1979, considering the petitioner's performance

has opined that the petitioner's continuance in bank's service would not be in

public interest and therefore, the respondent bank decided to retire the

petitioner from Bank's service with immediate effect. However, on

13.12.2004, the petitioner received a letter from the respondent bank

regarding "Settlement of Terminal Dues - Retirement Benefits" and on the

same date i.e. on 13.12.2004, the petitioner received a letter from the

respondent bank regarding furnishing of information related to the payment

of the welfare measures i.e. Ex-gratia, Benevolent Fund, Relief Fund

assistance, leave encashment etc. On 07.06.2018, the Department of PF &

Pension fund of the respondent bank issued the circular mentioned above

regarding 2nd Option of Pension for Compulsory Retired

Officers/Employees.

6. Learned counsel further submits that as the petitioner is entitled for

the benefits provided by the abovementioned circular in question, the

petitioner applied in the 2nd Option of Pension for Compulsory Retired

Officers/Employees to the Chief Manager of the PF & Pension Fund

Department vide application dated 08.08.2018. On 10.08.2018, the

petitioner received a letter stating therein that since the petitioner was retired

from the Bank's service in public interest under the PNB (Officers) Service

Regulations, 1979, the petitioner is not eligible to exercise 2nd pension

option in terms of Circular mentioned above.

7. Mr.Sharma has drawn the attention of this court to the compulsory

retirement order dated 27.09.2004 which is Annexure P-1 whereby it is

stated that after considering the performance of the petitioner, it is opined

that his performance in bank's service would not be in the public interest and

has, therefore, decided to retire him from Bank's service with immediate

effect. In the said communication dated 27.09.2004, it is no where

mentioned that the petitioner would not be entitled for any of the retiral

benefits.

8. Further submitted, as per circular dated 07.06.2018, there is no

distinction made between the premature retired employees and compulsory

retired officers. It is specifically stated in the abovementioned circular that

2nd Option of Pension may be allowed to ex-officers/ex-employees who

were compulsorily retired from the bank's service between 29.09.1995 to

27.04.2010 on same terms and conditions as are mentioned in Bipartite

Settlement/Joint note dated 27.04.2010. It is further stated that as per the

agreed terms and conditions of the said Bipartite Settlement, the pension

shall be payable w.e.f. 27.11.2009 provided that employees/officers who are

compulsorily retired after that date shall get pension from the respective

dates of such retirement. It is further specifically stated that the court cases,

if any, in the matter may be withdrawn forthwith.

9. Learned senior counsel submitted that the reasons denying the

pension to the petitioner are that when the petitioner was working as Senior

Manager (Incumbent Incharge) at Branch Office Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi,

one locker holder reported that locker could be opened with some difficulty

and the valuables were not in the locker. Moreover, 15 more lockers were in

the same state of affairs. The matter was immediately reported to controlling

officers and FIR was lodged with Police Station. Team of Security Officers,

M/s Steel Industry and M/s Godrej Industries along with their officers from

Bombay came to assess as to how lockers were opened and then put to such

condition that they could not be opened with keys. However, they were not

able to reach any concrete result, therefore, Delhi Police made out all efforts

but could not catch the culprit. After few months, the matter was sorted out

by UP/Delhi Police and valuables were recovered. During this period, the

petitioner was put under suspension and then retired compulsorily on

27.09.2004.

10. Learned counsel further submitted that one peon of the bank was

officiating as guard in the absence of Guards in the Branch. This fact was

reported to Senior Regional Manager Office. The officiating of Peon as

Guard was as per Bank's procedure. The keys of the vault and cash safe

were with the Manager (Second Man) posted at the Branch. The locker

keys/master keys were with the locker incharge during the day time as per

procedure. The Branch was under Concurrent Audit and the Inspector was

Bank's own staff and not Chartered Accountant. Regular inspection by the

Regional Office was also being done. The peon had broken the locker with

connivance with some other culprits (co-accused in UP) they were arrested

and put to trial in the criminal case. However, no memo/chargesheet was

issued against the petitioner. No criminal case was registered against the

petitioner, however, vide order dated 27.09.2004, the petitioner was retired

compulsorily in the public interest without mentioning the reasons therein. It

is also not mentioned that whether the petitioner would be entitled for any of

the retiral benefits or not.

11. Mr.Sharma, relying on the Regulation 19, whereby the petitioner has

been denied the pension, states that neither the petitioner was compulsorily

retired from bank's service, nor terminated. However, the petitioner was

retired prematurely in terms of Regulation 19 of PNB (Officers') Service

Regulations, 1979.

12. On perusal of Regulation 19(1), the age of retirement of an officer

employee shall be as determined by the Board in accordance with the

guidelines issued by the Government from time to time. Provided, the Bank

may retire at its discretion, on review by the Special Committee as provided

hereinafter in Sub-Regulation (2), if is of the opinion that it is in the public

interest, an officer employee on or at any time after completion of55 years

of age or on or at any time after the completion of 30 years of total service

as an officer employee or otherwise whichever is earlier. Provided further

that before retiring an officer employee, at least three months' notice in

writing or an amount equivalent to three months substantive salary/pay and

allowances, shall be given to such officer employees.

13. Thus, learned counsel submits that as per the Regulation 19(1) there is

no difference of compulsory retirement or premature retirement.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents has drawn the attention of this court to Regulation 32 & 33

which are reproduced as under:

"32. Premature Retirement Pension Premature Retirement Pension may be granted to an employee who-

a) has rendered minimum ten years of service; and

b) retires from service on account of orders of the Bank to retire prematurely in the public interest or for any other reason specified in service regulations or settlement, if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date.

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 Punjab National Bank Officer Employees'(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 or awards/settlement may be granted by the authority higher than the authority competent to impose such penalty, pension at a rate not less than two-thirds and not more than full pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date.

2) Whenever 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) A pension granted or awarded under sub-regulation (1) or, as the case may be, under sub-regulation (2), shall not be less than the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy five per mensem.

15. On perusal of the said regulations, Regulation 32 states that Premature

Retirement Pension may be granted to an employee who has rendered

minimum ten years of service whereas the petitioner, herein, has rendered 34

years of service which is not in dispute. It further says that Premature

Retirement Pension may be granted to an employee who retires from service

on account of orders of the Bank to retire prematurely in the public interest

or for any other reason specified in service regulations or settlement, if

otherwise he is entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date. As

per the aforesaid regulation, the pre-condition is, the bank officer has to be

compulsorily retired in the public interest, whereas, in case of the petitioner

it is evident from his retirement order dated 27.09.2004 that the petitioner

was compulsorily retired in the public interest. Therefore, this provision

does not distinguish the premature retirement and compulsorily retirement.

The intent of the aforesaid regulations pertains to those who were retired in

the public interest before completion of service.

16. Learned counsel for the bank further submits that since there was

breaking of lockers in the bank wherein the petitioner was manager of the

Branch, therefore, keeping in view the responsibility of the petitioner being

Manager, he was compulsorily retired in the public interest. At this stage,

counsel for the respondent bank has clarified that, that above mentioned

incident has nothing to do with the retirement of the petitioner.

17. This court put a query to the counsel for the respondent bank that

what was the reason to retire the petitioner in the public interest. The

counsel could not reply to the same, thus, it seems that the petitioner was

retired in the public interest only after the incident of the locker breaking in

the branch wherein the petitioner was a Branch Manager at the relevant

time.

18. As stated in the petition by the petitioner that he received a call from

the Chief Manager asking him to deposit an amount of ₹10,06,000/- as per

the bipartite settlement so that the petitioner would be able to get pension.

Accordingly, very same day i.e. on 12.09.2018, the petitioner deposited the

amount in the current PF account, however, the same was returned on the

same day on the ground that the petitioner was not compulsorily retired,

therefore, this pension scheme is not available to him.

19. Mr.Sharma has strongly argued that those officers who retired in

public interest either compulsorily or prematurely, they are getting pension

benefits whereas it is denied to the petitioner.

20. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has disputed this fact and

submitted that the officers, those at the time of retirement opted for pension,

only they are getting pension, whereas, the petitioner accepted the bipartite

settlement and received the gratuity and PF amount, therefore, did not opt

for pension. Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled for the same.

21. The fact remains that as per the bipartite settlement, the petitioner

received PF and gratuity amount. Thereafter, he deposited an amount of

₹10,06,000/- (bank contribution plus interest) and the same was returned to

the petitioner on the same day.

22. It is not in dispute that the petitioner rendered service of 34 years and

attained the age of 55 years on the day of retirement in public interest. As

per the circular, the minimum service required is 10 years and 55 years.

23. Thus, the petitioner qualified for both the conditions. Moreover,

counsel for the respondent failed to satisfy this court, what was the occasion

to retire the petitioner in public interest. If there was no ground in that case,

the petitioner is entitled for all retiral benefits.

24. Since the respondent bank returned an amount of ₹10,06,000/- to the

petitioner on 12.09.2018, therefore, the petitioner is directed to deposit the

said amount with interest @ 7.5% from 12.09.2018 till the date of deposit

and thereafter the respondent bank is directed to release his retiral benefits

and arrears within four weeks.

25. In view of above discussion, the petition is allowed and disposed of.

26. Pending application also stands disposed of.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE AUGUST 01, 2019 ab