Madras High Court
V.Pannerselvam vs The Chairman And Managing ... on 3 February, 2021
W.A(MD)No.60 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)No.60 of 2012
V.Pannerselvam ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman and Managing Director,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
No.763, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The AGM (Personnel),
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
No.763, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3.The Principal Accountant General (A & E),
361, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 11.11.2011 made in W.P(MD)No.12814 of 2011
on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Karthik Kanna
For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For R – 3 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/10
W.A(MD)No.60 of 2012
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 11.11.2011
passed in W.P(MD)No.12814 of 2011.
2.In the said Writ Petition, the prayer was to issue a Writ of
Mandamus, seeking a direction to the respondents to give pension to
the appellant / writ petitioner in accordance with the 9th Bipartite
Settlement, dated 27.04.2010 reached under the Indian Overseas
Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995.
3.The learned Single Judge, vide order 11.11.2011, dismissed
the said Writ Petition. Aggrieved over the same, the above Writ Appeal
is preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner.
4.The appellant / writ petitioner was working with the Indian
Overseas Bank from 1980 to 1995. He joined service on 20.11.1980
as a Messenger and absented himself unauthorisedly from
13.12.1994. Therefore, the second respondent had issued a letter,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.60 of 2012
dated 06.11.1995 to the appellant / writ petitioner, which reads as
follows:-
“We refer our notice of voluntary retirement dated
26.07.1995 advising that your absence from 13.12.1994 is
treated as unauthorised absence and you should report for
duty within 30 days. Even after issuance of this notice you
had not reported for duty. But sent a letter on 21.08.1995
stating that you wanted sick leave for further time without
mentioning the number of days leave requested by you.
Considering your request we granted time upto 15.10.1995
vide our letter dated 20.09.1995 and advised you to report
for duty on or before 15.10.1995, failing which it shall be
deemed that you have voluntarily retired from our Bank's
services on your own accord.
From the available records and conduct it is clear that
you have no intention of joining duties and want to prolong
the matter much to the dislocation of work.
In the circumstances, we decline your request and
advise you that since you have not reported for duty within
the stipulated time, you are deemed as voluntarily retired
from our services with effect from 16.10.1995.”
5.The said facts are not in dispute. Now the claim of the
appellant / writ petitioner is that he is entitled for pension in
accordance with 9th Bipartite Settlement, dated 27.04.2010 reached
under the Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.60 of 2012
1995. In this regard, attention was invited by the learned counsel for
the appellant / writ petitioner to Clause No.14 in Chapter IV of the
Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, which
provides for Qualifying Service, which reads as follows:-
“14.Qualifying Service:- Subject to the other conditions
contained in these regulations, an employee who has
rendered a minimum of ten years of service in the Bank on
the date of his retirement or the date on which he is deemed
to have retired shall qualify for pension.”
6.On the strength of the above Clause, the appellant / writ
petitioner contended that having completed more than 10 years of
service, he qualifies for the benefit of pension and he has to be
extended the benefit. The very same regularization also provides for
pension on voluntary retirement in Clause No.29 of Chapter V, which
provides for Classes of pension. As per which, on or after first day of
November 1993, at any time after an employee has completed 20
years of qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not less than
three months in writing to the appointing authority retire from service.
7.In this case, the appellant / writ petitioner had not invoked the
above Clause for retirement. It is only the respondents, who had sent
a communication on 06.11.1995, as referred supra, deeming him to
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.60 of 2012
have voluntary retirement from the Bank services with effect from
16.10.1995. Clause 33 deals with compulsory retirement pension,
which reads as follows:-
“33(1) An employee compulsory retired from
service as a penalty on or after 1st day of November, 1993
in terms of Discipline and Appeal Regulations or
settlement by the authority higher than the authority
competent to impose such penalty may be granted
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.”
8.Even as per the above provision, the appellant / writ petitioner
may not be entitled to the pension, as he has not even completed 15
years of service.
9.It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant / writ
petitioner that since the appellant / writ petitioner's services were
terminated, as held by the learned Single Judge, he was deemed to
have voluntarily retired from service.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.60 of 2012
10.Admittedly, the appellant / writ petitioner had not challenged
the communication dated 16.10.1995 and he accepted the same.
Though the learned counsel placed his reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank, Bangalore Vs. Satya
Srinath reported in 2007 (II) LLJ page 258, contending that the
same is squarely applicable to the appellant / writ petitioner, it is
basically distinguishable on facts as the appellant / writ petitioner has
put in only less than 15 years of service, whereas in the said case, the
employee had completed more than 20 years of service.
11.Even presuming that as per Clause 14, a minimum of 10
years of service is required, it will only apply to an employee retiring
after normal services and not for those who are compulsorily retired.
Clause 14 is also subject to the other conditions.
12.According to the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 1 & 2, there is a Forfeiture of Service, ie., if an employee
resigns or gets dismissed or removed from service of the Bank, the
Bank can forfeit his entire past service and consequently, shall not
qualify for the pensionary benefits.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.60 of 2012
13.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
14.In this case, admittedly, there was an unauthorised leave of
absence. Based on which, the appellant / writ petitioner was
compulsorily retired from service. Therefore, it would not be fair on
the part of the appellant / writ petitioner to demand that he is entitled
for pensionary benefits when the compulsory retirement is nothing
short of termination. Even so far as the Bipartite Settlement referred
to by the appellant / writ petitioner is concerned, to join the existing
pension scheme, the employees, who were in the service of the Bank
prior to 29th September, 1995 and continue in the service of the Bank
on the date of the settlement, are entitled for the scheme. They also
have to exercise an option in writing within 60 days from the date of
offer to become a member of the pension fund. The said 9 th Bipartite
Settlement came into force on 27.04.2010. Admittedly, the appellant /
writ petitioner had ceased to be an employee of the Bank as early as
on 16.10.1995 and he was not in service on the date of the
settlement. He had also not exercised his option for pension within the
stipulated time. Therefore, he is not eligible for any scheme based on
the said settlement also.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.60 of 2012
15.In fine, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed
by the learned Single Judge, dated 11.11.2011 made in
W.P(MD)No.12814 of 2011 and the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No
costs.
[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.]
03.02.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
ps
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for
official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate
/ litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.60 of 2012
To
1.The Chairman and Managing Director,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
No.763, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.The AGM (Personnel),
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
No.763, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3.The Principal Accountant General (A & E),
361, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.60 of 2012
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
ps
W.A(MD)No.60 of 2012
03.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
