Kerala High Court
S.A.R. Menon vs The Board Of Director Of The Union Bank Of ... on 7 November, 2024
1
W.P.(C) No.415 of 2017
2024:KER:83288
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 415 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
S.A.R. MENON
AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. A. RAGHAVA MENON
HARI SREE, KALAMBUKATTU, MANNAM P.O,
KOTTAYAM 686 571
BY ADV.
SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE BOARD OF DIRECTOR OF THE UNION BANK
OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMANCENTRAL
OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT,
MUMBAI 400 021
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
UNION BANK OF INDIACENTRAL OFFICE,
UNION BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT,
MUMBAI 400 021
3 THE REGIONAL MANAGER
UNION BANK OF INDIAREGIONAL OFFICE,
UNION BANK BHAVAN, STATUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI
SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP
2
W.P.(C) No.415 of 2017
2024:KER:83288
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C) No.415 of 2017
2024:KER:83288
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.415 of 2017
------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was inducted as a cashier in the respondent
Bank in the year 1971 and later promoted as an officer in 1979
and subsequently as a Branch Manager. While working as the
Branch Manager, the petitioner was suspended on 28.06.1989
and later dismissed on 26.06.1992. Though an appeal was filed
against the order of dismissal, that was also rejected.
2. In the year 1995, the 1st respondent Bank framed a
pension scheme, i.e., Union Bank of India (Employees) Pension
Regulation, 1995, produced as Ext.P1 in the writ petition. The
petitioner points out that he would be entitled for
compassionate allowance with reference to paragraph 31 of the
said scheme. Though an application at Ext.P2 was presented
seeking the afore benefits, by Ext.P3, the said claim stood
rejected, essentially pointing out that the petitioner had caused
substantial loss in excess of Rs.13 lakhs, and therefore, the
petitioner may not be entitled for terminal benefits and
2024:KER:83288
compassionate allowance as claimed by him.
3. In the afore circumstances that the petitioner has
filed the captioned writ petition, seeking a direction to the
respondents to grant compassionate allowance as also to
disburse the terminal benefits.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
and Sri.Sadchith P. Kurup, the learned counsel for the
respondent Bank.
5. Two issues arise for consideration in this writ petition.
6. The first issue is as regards the entitlement for the
compassionate allowance as regards the petitioner herein. In
this connection, clause 31 contains a cut-off date as regards the
entitlement for the said benefits. The said cut-off date states
that it is only those who have been dismissed / removed /
terminated from service on or after 01.11.1993, that the
question of extending the compassionate allowance arises.
Here, in the case at hand, the petitioner was dismissed during
1992, and hence, by virtue of the cut-off date, the petitioner
may not be entitled for the afore benefits. However, I notice that
while issuing Ext.P3, the issue has not been addressed in the
2024:KER:83288
afore angle. Instead, the Bank has opposed the afore eligibility
with reference to the financial loss caused by the petitioner. The
question of financial loss caused by the employee is not a
consideration in paragraph 13.
7. The second issue arising for consideration is as
regards the claim for terminal benefits. In Ext.P3, as noticed
earlier, the Bank has stated that the terminal benefits are just
in excess of Rs.90,000/-, whereas the loss caused is in excess
of Rs.13 lakhs, and therefore, that need not be paid. However,
it is seen that the afore finding has been arrived at without
putting the petitioner to notice.
8. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that,
though the question of extension of compassionate allowance is
purely at the discretion of the respondent Bank, the matter
requires a revisit at the hands of the Bank.
Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of as under;
i. Ext.P3 issued by the respondent is set aside.
ii. Respondents are directed to reconsider the
petitioner's claim at Ext.P2 afresh, after granting
the petitioner or his authorised representative an
2024:KER:83288
opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
iii. The question as to whether Ext.P1 would even
apply to the petitioner can also be considered by
the respondent Bank.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
anm
2024:KER:83288
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 415/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
UNION BANK OF INDIA(EMPLOYEES) PENSION
REGULATION 1995
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DATED 28-09-2015
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER DATED 20-10-2015
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED
BY THE ALL INDIA BANK EMPLOYEES
CONFEDERATION DATED 04-05-2012
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1 COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 3.3.2009 IN OP NO-
