Chitra Baruah vs The Central Bank Of India And 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4555 Gua

                                                               Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010065532022




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                           Case No. : WA/134/2022

         CHITRA BARUAH
         W/O LATE ABANI KANTA BARUAH
         RESIDENT OF SILSAKU, NORTH GUWAHATI, PO NORTH GUWAHATI DIST
         KAMRUP M GUWAHATI 781030



         VERSUS

         THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
         THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN,CENTRAL OFFICE, CHANDER MUKHI,
         NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400021

         2:THE REGIONAL MANAGER
          CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
          REGIONAL OFFICE
          GUWAHATI
          CENTRAL BANK BUILDING (3RD FLOOR) GS ROAD
          BHANGAGARH
          SAKTIGARH PATH
          GUWAHATI 781005
          DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM

         3:THE CHIEF MANAGER

          LBC GUWAHATI

         C/O REGIONAL MANAGER

          CENTRAL BANK BUILDING (3RD FLOOR) GS ROAD
          BHANGAGARH
          SAKTIGARH PATH
          GUWAHATI 781005
          DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM
                                                                      Page No.# 2/8


            4:THE MANAGER
             NON BUSINESS OFFICE
             CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
             PANBAZAR
             GUWAHATI 781001
             DIST KAMRUP M ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR H DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

-BEFORE-

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.M. CHHAYA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA 18-11-2022 R.M. Chhaya, C.J.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 21.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 3642/2019, the original petitioner has preferred this intra-Court appeal.

2. The following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of the appeal:

The husband of the appellant was serving as Manager in Central Bank of India since 1972. As the record unfolds, when the husband of the appellant was working as Manager of Barbhita Branch, Goalpara, disciplinary actions were initiated against him for misappropriation of Rs.1,28,500/-. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the husband of the appellant culminated into the order of dismissal from service on 30.09.2003. On the basis of the fact that the husband of the appellant had continuous service of 24 years in the bank, the appellant claimed the benefit of family pension. The record also shows that the husband of the appellant challenged the order of the dismissal before this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.3609/2008 which came to be dismissed Page No.# 3/8

with the order dated 10.06.2010. The said order passed in the writ petition was challenged by way of intra-writ appeal before this Court in WA No.267/2010 which also came to be dismissed on withdrawal by order dated 07.03.2011 with a liberty to approach civil court. The record also indicates that criminal proceedings were also initiated against the husband of the appellant for misappropriation being G.R. Case No.414/2002 before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara. However, as the husband of the appellant expired on 19.12.2017, the said proceedings stood abated. The appellant approached this Court by way of the present writ petition and prayed as under:

"In the premises aforesaid, it is a fit case in which Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this Petition, issue Notice to the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus shall not be issued to release the arrear and current family pension of your Petitioner due to death of her husband on 19.12.2017 who rendered his service in the Bank from the year, 1972 to till his dismissal on 30.09.2003 due to the alleged charge of misappropriation of Rs.1,28,500/- and/or further be pleased to pass any such justified order wherein your Petitioner will be entitled her arrear and current family pension with effect from 19.12.2017 i.e. date of death of her husband and/or pass such further or other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.

-AND-

In the interim, pending disposal of the Rule Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondents to release her provisional family pension as early as possible and/or pass such further or other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper."

3. It was the case of the appellant that the husband of the appellant was employee of the bank from the year 1972 till 30.09.2003 and therefore, it was Page No.# 4/8

contended by the appellant that she would be entitled to the benefit of the family pension. It was the further case of the appellant that the alleged charges against the late husband of the appellant were such that the same did not warrant dismissal. Representation was filed on 10.04.2019 before the bank authorities. However, as the same was not granted, the present writ petition was filed. The respondents appeared before this Court and contended that as per the Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations of 1995"), more particularly, Rule 22, the appellant is not entitled to claim any family pension and the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that as per Rule 22, forfeiture of service because of resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from service of the Bank, shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and would not qualify for any pensionary benefits including the family pension. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

4. Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent bank.

5. Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the appellant has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of this appeal and has reiterated the contentions which were raised before the learned Single Judge and contended that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the petition denying the right of family pension to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge has also committed an error in relying upon the Regulation 22 of the Regulations of 1995 and has arrived at the wrong finding that the appellant is not entitled to any family pension. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that out of six charges only one charge was proved against the husband of the appellant and therefore, Page No.# 5/8

the order of dismissal was also erroneous. It was lastly contended by Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the appellant that this Court may take sympathetic view and grant the benefit of family pension. On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Das contended that this appeal deserves to be considered on merits and allowed.

6. Per contra Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent bank has supported the impugned order. Mr. M. Sharma contended that the order of dismissal came to be challenged before this Court and the writ petition as well as the appeal came to be dismissed and thus, the order of dismissal attained finality. Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the Rule 22 of the Regulations of 1995 and the same are applicable in the instant case, more particularly, as the appellant's husband was serving as Manager of the bank. Mr. M. Sharma contended that the contentions raised by the appellant that the Regulations of 1995 are not applicable, is without any basis. Mr. Sharma further contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the facts on record and as the order of dismissal has become final, has rightly applied Rule 22 of the Regulations of 1995 and has dismissed the petition. No interference is called for and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. No other or further submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

8. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, the following admitted facts emerge from the record of the appeal.

a) That the husband of the appellant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for misappropriation and fraud while he was working as Branch Page No.# 6/8

Manager at Barbhita branch of Central Bank of India.

b) That a criminal complaint being Goalpara P.S. Case No.122/2002 was lodged against the husband of the appellant for alleged offence under Section 409 IPC and the same was registered as G.R. Case No.414/2002 before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Goalpara.

c) That the order of dismissal came be to be passed by the respondent authorities on 30.09.2003.

d) That the order of dismissal was challenged by filing WP(C) No.3609/2008 before this Court which came to be dismissed.

e) That the writ appeal being WA No.267/2010 came to be filed by the husband of the appellant, which was dismissed as withdrawn with the order dated 07.03.2011 with a liberty to approach the civil court.

f) That the order of dismissal dated 30.09.2003 became final.

9. The learned Single Judge in paragraph 7 of the impugned order has observed as thus:

"7. On perusal of the materials available on record, the Court finds that as per the order dated 30.09.2003, passed by the disciplinary authority of the Central Bank of India, in respect of charge No.1, the husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service with disqualification for future employment and that in respect of the charge nos.2 to 6, there is an order for reduction in the time scale of pay for separate period as indicated in the finding against the said charges and considering that the said order of dismissal had attained finality, the Court finds that the petitioner would not be entitled to pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 22 of the hereinbefore referred Regulation of 1995. The said Rule 22 is reproduced below:

Page No.# 7/8

22. Forfeiture of service:

(1) Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits ; (2) An interruption in the service of a Bank employee entails forfeiture of his past service, except in the following cases, namely:

(a) authorized leave of absence ;

(b) suspension, where it is immediately followed by reinstatement , whether in the same or a different post, or where the bank employee dies or is permitted to retire or is retired on attaining the age of compulsory retirement while under suspension;

Provided that where an employee opts for clause (b), retirement benefits shall be payable to him in India in rupees from such date and in such manner as the Bank may, by order specify."

10. The Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 would be applicable to all bank employees including the appellant's husband who was working as a Manager and therefore, it cannot be said that Rule 22 of the Regulations of 1995 shall have no application while considering the entitlement of family pension of the appellant. Rule 22 clearly postulates that on resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from service, all his past service would be forfeited and resultantly, such employee shall not qualify for the pensionary benefits. In the case at hand, it is an admitted position that the order of dismissal has become final and the Regulations of 1995 would be applicable and a bare reading of Rule 22 would disentitle the appellant from any pensionary benefit including the family pension.

11. In light of aforesaid, we are in total agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge and the conclusions arrived at by the learned Page No.# 8/8

Single Judge. No case for interference in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction is made out. The appeal being bereft of any merit, deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

                  JUDGE                            CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant