S.K.Gontia vs Allahabad Bank
2021 Latest Caselaw 162 MP

                                                       Writ Appeal No. 224 / 2020
                                       1

      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            W.A. No. 224 / 2020
                  (S.K. Gontia vs. Allahabad Bank and another)


Jabalpur, Dated: 24.02.2021

       Mr. Narmada Prasad Choudhary, Advocate for the appellant.

       Mr. Anoop Nair, Advocate for the respondents.

This writ appeal is directed against the order-dated 4.11.2019 passed

by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition filed by the

appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed.

The appellant/writ petitioner in the writ petition had prayed for a

direction to the respondent No.1 Allahabad Bank (which has now been

rechristened as Indian Bank) for release of his retiral dues and gratuity. The

appellant was dismissed from the service due to his conviction for offence

under section 7 and section 13(1) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentences of imprisonment for 2 years and fine

of Rs.4000/- vide judgment dated 24.11.2003.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant/writ petitioner

had filed an application (I.A. No. 12236/2018) seeking amendment in the

writ petition, praying for grant of 'compassionate allowance' in terms of

Regulation 31 of the Allahabad Bank Employee Pension Regulation, 1995

(for short 'Regulation of 1995'). The application was allowed on 20.12.2018

requiring the appellant/writ petitioner to file an amended petition within

three working days, but the appellant/writ petitioner neither filed the

amended petition nor made any application seeking extension of time. In Writ Appeal No. 224 / 2020

view of the above, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition

holding that since the appellant/writ petitioner was convicted in a criminal

case for an offence involving moral turpitude, which would entail forfeiture

of his pensionary benefits as well as the amount of gratuity. The prayer of

the appellant/writ petitioner for 'compassionate allowance' was also declined

as the petitioner had not challenged the order passed by the respondents

28.06.2016 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition).

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits of the

case. The factum of conviction of the appellant/writ petitioner under section

7 and section 13(1) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 formed the basis of his dismissal from service is not under

dispute. Therefore, as far as finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in

view of Regulation 22 of the Regulations of 1995, that dismissal of an

employee from the Bank entails forfeiture of entire past service and

consequently the employee does not qualify for the pensionary benefits, the

same has to be upheld. The learned Single Judge has also recorded a finding

that in view of Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the

termination of the appellant/writ petitioner from service for any act which

constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, would entail forfeiture of

gratuity also deserves to be upheld.

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner argued that the

appeal may be allowed now, by permitting the appellant to incorporate the

amendments in the writ petition and matter be remanded back to the learned

Single Judge for rehearing and that the case of the appellant/writ petitioner Writ Appeal No. 224 / 2020

came under the 'special consideration' provided in Regulation 31, of the

Regulations of 1995.

We have heard learned counsel on this aspect as well. Despite

repeated queries as to what 'special consideration' should be given to the

appellant/writ petitioner and how his case would be deserving 'special

consideration' under Regulation 31(1)(ii) of the Regulations of 1995, all that

the learned counsel for the appellant stated that since the appellant/writ

petitioner has been dismissed from service and he is yet to receive any retiral

dues, this makes out a deserving case under the 'special consideration'. For

that matter every case in which an employee is dismissed or removed from

service on account of conviction would come in that category, which cannot

be accepted. In our view, it would require more than that to make out a case

under 'special consideration' for grant of 'compassionate allowance' under

Regulation 31, of the Regulations of 1995. Since no such ground was

pleaded or otherwise made out, we do not find any good reason to remand

the matter back to the learned Single Judge by allowing this appeal at this

belated stage to incorporate the amendment in the pleadings for the purposes

of rehearing.

There is no merit in the writ appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.

                   (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)                    (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
                    CHIEF JUSTICE                              JUDGE


Digitally signed

 Aks/-
by ANIL KUMAR
S
Date: 2021.02.25
14:44:33 +05'30'