Madras High Court
Inayatulla Khan Lodi vs Indian Overseas Bank on 29 September, 2023
W.P No.22887 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.09.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.22887 of 2018
Inayatulla Khan Lodi ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. Indian Overseas Bank
Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer/Managing Director
Central Office, 763, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. The Chief Manager
HRMD – Pension Cell,
Indian Overseas Bank
Central Office, 763, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
relating to the impugned letter bearing HRMD/Pension/123/2018-2019
dated 04.07.2018 issued by the second respondent and to quash the same
and consequently direct the respondents to process petitioner's application
Page 1 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
for pension dated 27.02.2013 and sanction pension to him from the date he
was relieved from service on 16.06.2008 within a time frame.
***
For Petitioner : Mr. K.M.Ramesh
Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.N.Kumar
For Respondents : Mr. Anand Gopalan
for M/s. T.S.Gopalan & Co.,
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified
Mandamus seeking records relating to the impugned letter dated 04.07.2018
issued by the second respondent / Chief Manager, HRMD-Pension Cell,
Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Anna Salai, Chennai and to quash the
same and direct the respondents to process the application of the petitioner
for pension dated 27.02.2013 and sanction pension to the petitioner from
the date when he was relieved from service on 16.06.2008 within a time
frame.
2. The petitioner had joined the service of the erstwhile Bharath
Overseas Bank on 17.04.1974 as a Clerk. He was promoted as Scale I
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
Officer in the year 1982 and was transferred to Burra Bazar Branch at
Calcutta during 1988. At that particular point of time, he was issued with a
charge memo consequent to allegations of misappropriation alleging that
he had acted in collusion with the Branch Manager there and with some
customers, and thereby caused loss to the bank. An order of dismissing him
from service was passed on 19.07.1993.
3. The petitioner had filed an Appeal before the Board of
Directors, who dismissed the same. The petitioner filed a further Appeal
before the Appellate Authority under Section 41(2) of the Tamilnadu Shops
and Establishment Act1947. That Appellate Authority set aside the order of
dismissal. The respondent bank filed W.P.No. 9537 of 1997 which was
allowed by an order dated 01.04.2023. The petitioner then filed W.A.No.
1781 of 2003 and a Division Bench of this Court allowed the Appeal and
restored the order setting aside the order of dismissal. The petitioner further
stated that the respondents had filed a review before the Division Bench,
which was however dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in
service and was posted as Assistant Manager at Nagapattinam Main Branch.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
4. The petitioner then opted for voluntary retirement from service
in accordance with the Regulation 29 of Indian Overseas Bank (Employees)
Pension Regulations, 1995 and submitted an application to that effect on
24.09.2008. The petitioner claimed that he had to necessarily seek voluntary
retirement in view of the health condition of his wife. The application for
voluntary retirement was however kept pending for two months. The
petitioner then submitted a resignation letter on 24.11.2008 to the Branch
Manager of Nagapattinam Branch. This particular resignation letter was
also kept pending and after seven months, it was accepted and according to
the petitioner, he was relieved from service by an order dated 16.06.2009.
5. The petitioner claimed that he had put in 35 years and 2 months
of service and was therefore eligible for pension under the Pension Rule
1995. During his service, he had contributed his portion from his salary
towards provident fund and the respondent Bank had also given their
contribution. The petitioner claimed that the gratuity amount payable to
him was credited after about four years from the date of his resignation. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
stated that the contribution towards provident fund by the Bank was held
back. The petitioner was therefore of the opinion that his request seeking to
pension was under consideration of the respondents.
6. The petitioner thereafter stated that thereafter while the
application was kept pending, the respondents had brought about,
consequent to a pension settlement dated 29.10.1993, a pension Regulation
1995. He had not opted for the same. Thereafter, the scheme was further
extended and an opportunity was given, even to those who had retired to
join the pension scheme. The petitioner applied for joining in the pension
scheme in the prescribed form on 27.02.2013 and offered to refund the
provident fund contribution of the respondents together with interest.
7. The impugned order was then passed on 04.03.2018 rejecting
his request. In the impugned order, the reason given was that the said offer
would be available only to those who had retired from service and to those
who had voluntarily retirement from service but not for those who had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
resigned from service. That latter portion was not specifically stated.
Questioning that particular communication, the present Writ Petition has
been filed.
8. The respondents filed a counter affidavit wherein the facts of
the services of the petitioner were not denied but however it was stated that
the petitioner had ceased from employment with effect from 16.06.2009, not
on account of attaining the age of superannuation or by way of voluntary
retirement but on the basis of a letter of resignation given by him. It was
stated that as per Regulation 22(1) of the Indian Overseas Bank Employees'
Pension Regulations 1995, resignation or dismissal or removal or
termination would entitle forfeiture of entire past service and shall not
qualify for pensionary benefits. It was therefore claimed that though the
option to join the pension scheme was extended in the year 2010, it was not
applicable to the petitioner herein since he had resigned from service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
9. It was also stated that there was no obligation on the
respondents to communicate any settlement reached or notices issued to
such employees. It was also sated that much later in the year 2018, the
petitioner had given a representation and the rejection has been challenged
in the Writ Petition though the scheme was opened up in the year 2010 and
the option was exercised by the petitioner in the year 2013. In effect, it had
been stated that the claim of the petitioner should also be rejected on the
ground of latches and delay.
10. Heard Mr K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Anand Gopalan, learned counsel for the
respondents.
11. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner that though the petitioner had given a letter seeking to voluntary
retirement from service on 24.09.2008, the respondents had not acted on the
same. It was further contended that the heath condition of the wife of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
petitioner deteriorated when he was posted in Nagapattinam and the
petitioner was under an obligation to come over to Chennai. Therefore, left
with no other option and frustrated at the lack of response from the
respondents, the petitioner had given a letter of resignation on 24.11.2008.
It was contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the said letter of
resignation was also kept pending. The petitioner was finally relieved from
service only on 16.06.2009. The learned Senior Counsel stated that when
the pension scheme opened up on the year 2010, the petitioner had given an
application seeking to join in the pension scheme in the year 2013 and
thereafter, since it had been rejected, had filed the Writ Petition.
12. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner that the act of resignation would not come to the disadvantage of
the petitioner herein to join the pension scheme. It was specifically
contended that the respondents had an obligation to extend the scheme even
to those who had resigned since it was a pension scheme and in this
connection, the learned Senior Counsel had placed very strong reliance on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
the Judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2011) 12 SCC 197
[ Sheelkumar Jain Vs. New India Assurance Co.,Ltd.,].
13. In that particular case, the Supreme Court had examined the
effect of resignation and voluntary retirement. It was stated that while
resignation from service entitled forfeiture of benefit of past service,
voluntary retirement does not and that a person, who had voluntary retired
would be entitled to pension under the scheme in question. Thereafter, the
Court further examined whether an employee, who resigned or voluntarily
retired, could still seek the benefit of pension scheme.
14. The Court then examined the provisions of the General
Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act 1972 and also General Insurance
(Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995 and the General Insurance
(Termination, Superannuation and Retirement of Officers and Development
Staff) Scheme, 1976. The Supreme Court then examined the effect of the
resignation of an employee. In paragraph No. 26, examining the facts, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as observed as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
“26. In the facts of the present case, we find
that the appellant had completed 20 years of
qualifying service and had given notice of not less
than 90 days in writing to the appointing authority
of his intention to leave the service and the
appointing authority had accepted notice of the
appellant and relieved him from service. Hence,
Para 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme applied to the
appellant even though in his letter dated 16-9-
1991 to the General Manager of Respondent 1
Company he had used the word “resign”. ”
15. Thereafter, in paragraph Nos. 27 and 28, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had examined the precedents on the said aspect:-
“27. We may now cite the authorities in
support of our aforesaid conclusion. In Sudhir
Chandra Sarkar v. TISCO Ltd. [(1984) 3 SCC
369 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 540 : AIR 1984 SC 1064]
, the plaintiff had rendered continuous service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
under the respondent from 31-12-1929 till 31-8-
1959 i.e. for 29 years and 8 months. He submitted
a letter of resignation dated 27-7-1959 and his
resignation was accepted by the respondent by
letter dated 26-8-1959 and he was released from
his service with effect from 1-9-1959. On these
facts, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held:
(SCC p. 376, para 7)
“7. … The termination of service was thus
on account of resignation of the plaintiff being
accepted by the respondent. The plaintiff has,
within the meaning of the expression, thus retired
from service of the respondent and he is qualified
for payment of gratuity in terms of Rule 6.”
28. In Union of India v. Lt. Col. P.S.
Bhargava [(1997) 2 SCC 28 : 1997 SCC (L&S)
290], the respondent joined the Army Dental
Corps in 1960 and thereafter he served in various
capacities as a specialist and on 2-1-1984 he
wrote a letter requesting for permission to resign
from service with effect from 30-4-1984 or from
an early date. His resignation was accepted by a
communication dated 24-7-1984 and he was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
released from service and he was also informed
that he shall not be entitled to gratuity, pension,
leave pending resignation and travel concession.
On receipt of this letter, he wrote another letter
dated 18-8-1984 stating that he was not interested
in leaving the service. This was followed by
another letter dated 22-8-1984 praying to the
authority to cancel the permission to resign. ”
16. Thereafter, in paragraph No. 29, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had held as follows:-
“29. These letters were written by the
respondent because he realised that he would
be deprived of his pension, gratuity, etc. as a
consequence of his resignation. These
subsequent letters dated 18-8-1984 and 22-8-
1984 were not accepted and the respondent
was struck off from the rolls of the Army on 24-
8-1984. On these facts, the Court held: (P.S.
Bhargava case [(1997) 2 SCC 28 : 1997 SCC
(L&S) 290] , SCC p. 32, para 19)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
“19. … Once an officer has to his credit
the minimum period of qualifying service, he
earns a right to get pension and as the
Regulations stand, that right [to get pension]
can be taken away only if an order is passed
under Regulation 3 or 16.””
17. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had given its conclusion in
paragraph Nos. 30, 31 and 32 :-
“30. The aforesaid authorities would show that
the court will have to construe the statutory
provisions in each case to find out whether the
termination of service of an employee was a
termination by way of resignation or a
termination by way of voluntary retirement and
while construing the statutory provisions, the
court will have to keep in mind the purposes of
the statutory provisions.
31. The general purpose of the 1995 Pension
Scheme, read as a whole, is to grant pensionary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
benefits to employees, who had rendered service
in the insurance companies and had retired after
putting in the qualifying service in the insurance
companies. Paras 22 and 30 of the 1995 Pension
Scheme cannot be so construed so as to deprive
of an employee of an insurance company, such as
the appellant, who had put in the qualifying
service for pension and who had voluntarily
given up his service after serving 90 days' notice
in accordance with sub-para (1) of Para 5 of the
1976 Scheme and after his notice was accepted
by the appointing authority.
32. In the result, we set aside the orders of the
Division Bench of the High Court in the writ
appeal as well as the learned Single Judge and
allow this appeal as well as the writ petition filed
by the appellant and direct the respondents to
consider the claim of the appellant for pension in
accordance with the 1995 Pension Scheme and
intimate the decision to the appellant within
three months from today. There shall be no order
as to costs. ”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
18. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also placed
reliance on a subsequent Judgement of the Supreme Court reported in
(2014) 16 SCC 260 [ Shashikala Devi Vs. Central Bank of India]. In that
particular case, it had been observed that the appellant before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had rendered 34 years of service and was therefore entitled
to receive pension under the voluntary retirement scheme. It was also
observed that the letter dated 08.10.2007 given by the appellant therein
sought voluntary retirement and not resignation. It was also held that
pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of graze but a recognition of past
service rendered by the employee. It was also held that therefore, the Courts
should be reluctant and to deny the relief as employees would not abandon a
valuable right without cogent reasons.
19. Thereafter, the facts of the case was examined and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court placed reliance on (2011) 12 SCC 197 Sheelkumar Jain Vs.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., referred supra and held as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
“21. In Sheelkumar Jain v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. [Sheelkumar Jain v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 12 SCC 197] , the facts
were somewhat similar to the case at hand. The
appellant in that case was an employee of an
insurance company governed by a pension scheme
which provided, as in the case at hand, forfeiture of the
entire service of an employee should he resign from his
employment. The appellant submitted a letter of
resignation which resulted in denial of his service
benefits under the scheme aforementioned. This Court,
however, held that since the employee had completed
the qualifying service and was entitled to seek
voluntary retirement under the scheme he could not be
said to have resigned so as to lose his pension. This
Court said: (SCC pp. 205-06, paras 25-26)
“25. Para 22 of the 1995 Pension Scheme states
that the resignation of an employee from the service of
the corporation or a company shall entail forfeiture of
his entire past service and consequently he shall not
qualify for pensionary benefits, but does not define the
term ‘resignation’. Under sub-para (1) of Para 30 of
the 1995 Pension Scheme, an employee, who has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
completed 20 years of qualifying service, may by
giving notice of not less than 90 days in writing to the
appointing authority retire from service and under
sub-para (2) of Para 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme,
the notice of voluntary retirement shall require
acceptance by the appointing authority. Since
‘voluntary retirement’ unlike ‘resignation’ does not
entail forfeiture of past services and instead qualifies
for pension, an employee to whom Para 30 of the 1995
Pension Scheme applies cannot be said to have
‘resigned’ from service.
26. In the facts of the present case, we find that
the appellant had completed 20 years of qualifying
service and had given notice of not less than 90 days in
writing to the appointing authority of his intention to
leave the service and the appointing authority had
accepted notice of the appellant and relieved him from
service. Hence, Para 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme
applied to the appellant even though in his letter dated
16-9-1991 to the General Manager of Respondent 1
Company he had used the word ‘resign’.”
22. In the result this appeal succeeds and is
hereby allowed. The impugned order [Shashikala Devi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
v. Central Bank of India, LPA No. 1998 of 2010,
order dated 11-11-2011 (Pat)] passed by the High
Court is, hereby, set aside and the writ petition filed by
the deceased employee allowed [Shashikala Devi v.
Central Bank of India, CWJC No. 13458 of 2008,
order dated 29-9-2010 (Pat)] with a direction to the
respondent Bank to treat the letter dated 8-10-2007 as
a notice for voluntary retirement of the employee and
for curtailment of three months' notice period.
Depending upon the view the competent authority may
take on the question of curtailment of the notice period
and/or deduction of three months' salary from out of
the retiral benefits of the deceased employee, the
deceased employee's claim for payment of retiral
benefits due under the relevant rules including pension
shall be processed and released in favour of the
appellant widow as expeditiously as possible but not
later than six months from the date a copy of this order
is served upon the Bank. In the event of the Bank's
failure to comply with the directions within six months
as indicated above, the amount payable to the
employee and after his death his widow, shall start
earning interest @ 10% p.a. from the date the period
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
of six months expires. The parties are left to bear their
own costs. ”
20. It was thus contended by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf
of the petitioner herein that even though the petitioner had resigned from
service, there was a compulsive reason to tender that particular letter and
therefore claimed that the petitioner must be granted the benefit of the
pension scheme as offered by the respondents.
21. However, Mr. Anand Gopalan, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents contended that the Judgment in Sheelkumar Jain
referred supra would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. It
was very specifically stated by the learned counsel that that particular
Judgment was rendered taking into consideration employees of an Insurance
Company and not with respect to a Bank employee like the petitioner
herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
22. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on 2012 9 SCC 671
[M.R.Prabhakar and Others Vs. Canara Bank and Others]. The learned
counsel pointed out that the Supreme Court in this particular case had very
specifically examined the ratio laid down in Sheelkumar Jain referred
supra and had distinguished the same on the ground that the said reasoning
was related to an Insurance Company and not with respect to a Banking.
23. In this case, the appellants had claimed pension though they
had resigned from their respective services before the settlement had been
reached between All India Bank Officer's Federation and the Indian Banks'
Association. It was therefore contended that the 1995 regulation would not
apply to the appellants.
24. With respect to the ratio laid down in Sheelkumar Jain
referred supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:-
“18. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellants have placed heavy reliance on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
Sheelkumar Jain [(2011) 12 SCC 197] and
submitted that in the light of that judgment, the
decision rendered in Sanwar Mal [(2004) 4 SCC
412 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 699] requires
reconsideration. We find it difficult to accept the
contention raised by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants.
19. We may point out that in Sheelkumar
Jain [(2011) 12 SCC 197] this Court was dealing
with an insurance scheme and not the pension
scheme, which is applicable in the banking sector.
The provisions of both the scheme and the
Regulations are not in pari materia. In
Sheelkumar Jain case [(2011) 12 SCC 197] ,
while referring to Para 5, this Court came to the
conclusion that the same does not make
distinction between “resignation” and “voluntary
retirement” and it only provides that an employee
who wants to leave or discontinue his service
amounts to “resignation” or “voluntary
retirement”. Whereas, Regulation 20(2) of the
Canara Bank (Officers') Service Regulations,
1979 applicable to banks, had specifically
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
referred to the words “resignation”, unlike Para
5 of the Insurance Rules. Further, it is also to be
noted that, in that judgment, this Court in para 30
held that the Court will have to construe the
statutory provisions in each case to find out
whether the termination of service of an employee
was a termination by way of resignation or a
termination by way of voluntary retirement.
20. The appellants, when tendered their
letters of resignation, were governed by the 1979
Regulations. Regulation 20(2) of the 1979
Regulations dealt with resignation from service
and they tendered their resignation in the light of
that provision. We are of the view that the
appellants have failed to show any pre-existing
rights in their favour either in the statutory
settlement/joint note dated 29-10-1993 or under
the 1995 Regulations. The appellants had
resigned from service prior to 1-11-1993 and,
therefore, were not covered by the statutory
settlement, joint note dated 29-10-1993 and the
1995 Regulations. They could not establish any
pre-existing legal, statutory or fundamental rights
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
in their favour to claim the benefit of the 1995
Regulations. Consequently, the reliance placed by
the appellants either on Regulation 29 or
Regulation 22 in support of their contentions,
cannot be accepted, since they are not covered by
the scheme of pension introduced by the banks
with effect from 1-11-1993.
21. We, therefore, find no merit in these
appeals and the same are dismissed with no order
as to costs. ”
25. It is therefore contended by Mr. Anand Gopalan that this
particular Judgment would be directly applicable to the facts of this case.
26. On behalf of the petitioner, there was a further reliance placed
on a Circular of the Indian Bank Association dated 07.03.2013 wherein it
had been stated that an employee, who was a member of the Provident Fund
Scheme had compulsory retired from service either before 27.04.2010 and
after that date, should not be eligible for another option for pension. It had
also been stated that however if it is a bona fide mistake on the part of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
Bank, then such rejection should be critically reviewed. Probably, the
learned Senior Counsel relied on this particular circular to insist on the
Court to direct the respondents to reconsider the decision taken by them.
27. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced. The facts
in this case are not disputed. The petitioner had joined as a Clerk and at the
relevant point of time was working as an Officer in Nagapatinam Branch of
the respondents. On 24.09.2008, citing the illness of his wife, who was at
Chennai, the petitioner had given his willingness to retire on Voluntary
Retirement from the respondents. It is normally accepted that such request
should be considered within a period of 90 days by the
respondent/Management. Even before that period could end on 24.11.2008,
the petitioner had given a letter of resignation from the Bank. It would
only be appropriate that such letter of resignation is reduced in entirety. It is
as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
“Dear Sir
Sub:- RESIGNATION
I am hereby submitting my resignation letter due to personal and on
health grounds. I hereby request you to kindly relieve me with immediate
effect. In lieu of notice period I am willing to pay the salary.”
28. One significant factor in this particular letter is that the
petitioner had also mentioned about the notice period. In a Voluntary
Retirement Scheme, there is no question of salary being paid in lieu of
notice. That would arise only in cases of resignation and not in cases of
retirement. The intention of the petitioner was therefore very clear. He
wanted to resign from the service of the respondents. Once that particular
resignation is accepted, there was no further employer or employee
relationship between the petitioner and the respondents. On that particular
date, whatever amounts are payable to him should be paid to him and
thereafter, there is a complete cessation of employer and employee
relationship.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
29. The issue of retirement is different. A person, who retires
would always be eligible to join in any scheme, which is subsequently
offered by the respondents, for those who had retired from service. The
respondents had originally offered a pension scheme of the year 1995. The
petitioner did not join in that scheme. Subsequently, a window was again
opened by the respondents in the year 2010. The petitioner did not
immediately join. He had earlier resigned by giving a letter on 24.11.2008.
He then forwarded an application to join in that particular scheme only in
the year 2013. This was a second option to join the pension scheme. The
second option is not the second option of the petitioner but the second time
when that particular option was opened up by the respondents. It was so
opened up by the respondents consequent to a settlement reached between
the Union and the respondents.
30. It is seen that the petitioner had delayed in exercising his
option. He had given such option only on 27.02.2013. By that time, the
scheme itself had closed. The window was open for a specific period of time
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
and after the window had closed, which was in the year 2010, the petitioner
had given his application seeking to join in the pension scheme. However,
resigned, the petitioner cannot be considered for being admitted to the
pension scheme. The resignation of the petitioner was covered under
Regulation 22(1) of the Employees Pension Regulations, 1995. It had been
specifically provided that those, who had resigned would not qualify for
pensional benefits. The said provision which was given in the counter
affidavit is extracted below:-
“Regulation 22(1):
(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.”
31. This is the only a ground on which the respondents had
rejected the application of the petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
32. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner had placed
reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheelkumar
Jain Vs. New India Assurance Co., Ltd., reported (2011) 12 SCC 197. But
however, the answer to that contention had been given by the subsequent
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 9 SCC 671
[ M.R.Prabhakar and others Vs. Canara Bank and Others]. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court had distinguished the reasonings given in Sheelkumar Jain
and very categorically stated that what was discussed in Sheelkumar Jain
was with respect to an Insurance Company Scheme and not the Pension
Scheme which was applicable to the Banking Sectors.
33. It had also been held that the provisions of both the schemes
and the regulations were not pari materia with that of the Insurance
Scheme. It was also held that in the Banking Sector, there is a specific
distinction between the resignation and the Voluntary Retirement. They are
separate doors. Resignation severs all connection with the employer on and
from the date it is accepted by the employer. It had therefore been held in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
(2014) 16 SCC 260 [ Shashikala Devi Vs. Central Bank of India] would
not come to the rescue of the appellant therein.
34. This ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding.
Even in the instant case, the respondents are in the Banking sector and, the
ratio as laid down in M.R. Prabhkar (referred Supra) alone would apply to
the facts of this case.
35. With respect to the other Judgment relied on by the learned
Senior Counsel, Shashikala Devi (referred Supra) (2014) 16 SCC 260, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had examined the particular letter which had been
given and had interpreted it as one of voluntary retirement and not as a
resignation letter.
36. But in the instant case, the letter of the petitioner, should be
considered only as a resignation since a separate letter had been given by
the petitioner on 24.09.2008 seeking voluntary retirement and the letter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
given seeking resignation on 24.11.2008 did not have as a reference, the
earlier letter and did not once again reiterate preference to retire voluntarily
from the respondents. It was a definite expression of intent that the
petitioner wanted to resign from service. He had also given his reasons.
37. Reliance had also been placed by the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
in 2022 SCC Online SCC 1248 [State of Rajasthan Vs. O.P. Gupta]. The
respondent therein had resigned from Rajasthan State Agro Industry
Corporatoin to take up an appointment as Assitant Director (Agro-
Industries) in the Department of Industries in the State of Rajasthan, after
being selected through the RPSC. This aspect was thereafter considered and
it was held as follows:-
“23. There can be no doubt that
resignation from service may entail forfeiture of
past service. However, sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 of
the Rules carves out an exception. The said sub-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
rule clarifies that a resignation with proper
permission to take up another appointment,
whether temporary or permanent, under the
Government shall not entail forfeiture of past
service.”
38. It had been very specifically held that 'resignation from service
would entitle forfeiture of past service'. This was a statement of law.
Thereafter, the exception to the Rule as provided in the Rules therein under
Rule 25(2) of the Rules had been examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Owing to that exception relief granted. That is a defining factor.
39. In the instant case, the petitioner had first issued a letter
seeking voluntary retirement and thereafter issued another letter seeking
resignation. He was clear with what he wanted. He wanted to resign from
service. He did not want to have any further relationship with the
respondent Bank. It must also be kept in mind that the petitioner is not and
cannot either claim innocence or ignorance and seek indulgence. As his
records shows he is quite adopt in judicial proceedings having bought his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
way through, while earlier discharged from service and had finally had
succeeded when the matter reach the Division Bench of this Court.
Therefore the petitioner cannot claim that he was not aware of the terms he
used. The term he used was specifically 'resignation'. He should abide that
particular statement. I hold that the respondents were correct in rejecting his
request.
40. The Writ Petition therefore fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
No costs.
vsg 29.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
To
1. Chief Executive Officer/Managing Director
Indian Overseas Bank
Central Office, 763, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
2. The Chief Manager
HRMD – Pension Cell,
Indian Overseas Bank
Central Office, 763, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No.22887 of 2018
vsg
W.P.No.22887 of 2018
29.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
