Gujarat High Court
Kirit Harendrabhai Raval - Clerk Gr-2, ... vs Reserve Bank Of India (Rbi) on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10965/2015 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10965 of 2015
==========================================================
KIRIT HARENDRABHAI RAVAL - CLERK GR-2, CNEX-GR2
Versus
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (RBI)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAJESH P RAVAL FOR MR HARDIK H PANDIT(5820) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR AMAR N BHATT(160) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 09/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed praying to quash and set
aside the decision of the RBI dated 5.6.2008 and further to
declare that the petitioner is entitled to pension from the
date of his voluntary retirement.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are
such that the petitioner was appointed as clerk Grade II/coin
examiner Grade II in the respondent bank on 30.2.1978; the
petitioner gave option for pension in the prescribed format, as
required by the respondent on 27.10.2000; the petitioner
submitted his resignation from service on 21.2.2001, which
was accepted vide order dated 19.3.2001; as the petitioner
was not given the pension, he preferred Special Civil
Application No.13048 of 2003 before this Court, which was
heard finally and was disposed of on 30.1.2008 with a liberty
to approach the concerned authority with appropriate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10965/2015 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
representation; the petitioner submitted representation to the
respondent on 26.3.2008, which was rejected vide order dated
5.6.2008 and therefore this petition is filed.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner has put in 23 years of service and had
also submitted the pension option and that he had used the
word resignation instead of retirement by bonafide mistake;
that the respondent has rejected the representation by saying
that the petitioner had proceeded on leave from 18.2.1999 to
go abroad and in the year 2000, he had sent option for
pension and that he resigned from the bank with effect from
21.2.2001 and also requested for waiver of mandatory period
of notice of one month; that the notice period was three
months in case of voluntary retirement; that the respondent
accepted the resignation with effect from 21.2.2001 and
mandatory period was waived and therefore the pension was
denied considering the resignation as forfeiture of service. He
submitted that the petitioner was in fact eligible and entitled
to avail benefits of pension scheme by opting for voluntary
retirement at the relevant time, however, as the petitioner
has mentioned the word resignation, it has come in his way
in availing the benefits of pension. He submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10965/2015 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
petitioner preferred petition before this Court, which was
disposed of with a liberty to approach the respondent with
appropriate representation and also issued certain directions
to consider the same sympathetically and communicate the
decision to the petitioner within stipulated time. However, the
respondent did not take a positive view on the
representation. He, therefore, submitted that this petition be
allowed.
5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent-
RBI has submitted that this petition is suffering from delay
and laches as the decision dated 5.6.2008 is sought to be
challenged by way of this petition in the year 2015 i.e. after
a delay of more than seven years. He submitted that no
discretionary relief can be granted where the petitioner
chooses to sit over a matter and then wakes up only after a
decision of the Court.
6. On merits, learned advocate for the respondent-RBI
has submitted that by letter dated 21.2.2001 of the petitioner,
the petitioner tendered his `resignation'; that the mandatory
notice period in case of resignation is one month and for
voluntary retirement, it is 90 days, which period can be
waived, if requested. The petitioner has requested the RBI to
waive 30 days notice period which is required in case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10965/2015 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
`resignation', which was accepted by the RBI on 19.3.2001
and the mandatory period of one month notice, as requested
by the petitioner, was waived and therefore, the petitioner
has resigned and not voluntarily retired from the service and
therefore no pension can be granted. He further submitted
that the petitioner remained absent from service without
leave from 18.4.1999 to 21.2.2001 and he migrated to USA
and his resignation was tendered from USA on 21.2.2001. He,
therefore, submitted that the case of the petitioner that by
mistake, he used the word `resignation' instead of `retired' is
an afterthought. He, therefore, submitted that this petition is
required to be dismissed.
7. In support of his submissions, he has relied on
the following decisions:
(1) C.Jacob V/s Director of Geology and Mining and Another
reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115.
(2) A.P.Steel ReRolling Mill Ltd. V/s State of Kerala and
Others reported in (2007) 2 SCC 725.
(3) M.R.Prabhakar and Others V/s Canara Bank and Others
reported in (2012) 9 SCC 671.
(4) Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of
India Limited and Others reported in (2019) 4 SCC 479.
(5) Bses Yamuna Power Limited V/s Ghanshyam Chand
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10965/2015 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
Sharma and Another reported in (2020) 3 SCC 346.
(6) Reserve Bank of India and Another V/s Cecil Dennis
Solomin and Another reported in (2004) 9 SCC 461.
8. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties
and perused the material placed on record.
9. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the
petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.13048 of 2003
before this Court, which was dismissed for default and
subsequently restored. Thereafter, the said petition was
disposed of on 30.1.2008, the said petition was disposed of
with direction to the RBI to consider the representation of
the petitioner. The petitioner preferred representation dated
26.3.2008, which was considered and rejected by RBI on
5.6.2008. This petition is filed on 26.4.2015 i.e. after about
seven years from the date of rejection of the said
representation. There is no explanation, much less, sufficient
explanation for such delay, coming on the record and even
the learned advocate for the petitioner could not point out
any sufficient cause for such delay. Therefore, this petition is
required to be dismissed only on this ground of delay and
laches.
10. Even on merits, it transpires from the record that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10965/2015 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
the petitioner tendered resignation on 21.2.2001 and the
mandatory period of notice for resignation is one month and
for voluntary retirement it is 90 days. The RBI accepted the
voluntary resignation of the petitioner and waived the
mandatory notice period of one month, as requested by the
petitioner. Therefore, the say of the petitioner that the
petitioner has, by mistake, mentioned resignation instead of
voluntary retirement does not inspire confidence, in view of
the fact that the petitioner has mentioned the word
`resignation' and also prayed to waive the notice period of
one month in his application, which means the petitioner was
praying for resignation and not voluntary retirement.
Therefore also, no fault can be found in the decision of the
respondent-RBI.
11. In view of the above and in view of the principles
laid down in the judgments cited by learned advocate for the
respondent-RBI, when the petitioner has sit over a matter for
years together and preferred this petition after a delay of
about seven years and that the resignation was tendered by
the petitioner from USA, as can be seen from the record,
after remaining absence from service without leave for certain
period, with a permission to waive the notice period of one
month, which was accepted by the respondent-RBI, such
prayer of the petitioner to consider his resignation as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10965/2015 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
voluntary retirement, after such a long delay, cannot be
accepted and therefore this petition is required to be
dismissed.
12. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with no
order as to costs. Rule is discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
