Dismissed

V Damodharam v. the Syndicate Bank

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Dec 2024WP/1556/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ petition challenging the exclusion of temporary service from pension calculation. The petitioner, who worked intermittently from 1985 to 2002, sought regularization and inclusion of prior service. The court held that without a specific scheme, temporary service does not count for pensionary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's claim for inclusion of temporary service in pension fixation was dismissed.

V Damodharam Vs the Syndicate Bank — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

[3310]

¶2

APHC010025372020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1556/2020

Between:

V Damodharam

...PETITIONER

AND

The Syndicate Bank and Others

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

1.S DILIP JAYA RAM

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

1.T B L MURTHY

¶18

The Court made the following Order:

¶19

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶20

seeking the following relief:

¶21

“…..to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction declaring the action on the part of the respondent bank in not taking the services rendered by the petitioner on temporary basis from 21.08.1985 to 11.10.2002 but taking his service as 17 years with effect from 11.10.2002 to 31.07.2019 in fixation of pension as arbitrary illegal and unconstitutional and violation of Articles 14, 21 of Indian constitution …….”

¶22

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a physically challenged person and belongs to OBC community. The petitioner was appointed as temporary attender in 3^rd respondent bank vide Ref.No.1375/38/85/3461/CIR, dated 31.08.1985. Since then the petitioner working at various branches from 1985 to 2002. In the year 2002, the petitioner was appointed as probationary attender in Kavali branch, SPSR Nellore district. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents requesting to consider on par with regular employees in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, after completion of 5 years on temporary employment. Thereafter, the petitioner was regularized and appointed as permanent clerk and continued till 31.07.2019. The petitioner served the respondent bank nearly for 33 years, but they have calculated and fixed the pension from the date of regularization till date of retirement only which comes to period of 17 years only and they have not considered 16 years of probation period at various branches of respondent bank. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶24

The respondents filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the writ petition and mainly contended that the petitioner joined the service of bank on 11.10.2002 and after completion of probation, he was confirmed in the service of the bank on 11.01.2003. During service, he was tranferred to various places and was promoted to Clerical Cadre on 01.01.2012 through departmental promotion. While the petitioner was working at Tirupathi

¶25

¶26

Settipalli Branch, he attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2019 and exited from the service of the bank. It is further contended that the Bank has paid all the eligible terminal benefits to the petitioner on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.07.2019, which was accepted by the petitioner as full

¶27

and final settlement without any objection. It is further contended that the petitioner was entrusted with temporary duties of Attender from 1985 to 2002 on intermittent basis as and when required and paid accordingly on number of days of work, till he was regularized as Attender-Sub-Staff cadre in the service of the bank with effect from 11.10.2002. The allegation of the petitioner that he was continuously working from 1985 to 2002 is hereby denied by the respondent bank. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶28

Heard Mr.S.Dilip Jaya Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.B.L.Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶29

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the respondents failed to conisder that the petitioner was appointed in a substantive vacancy and after completion of probation period, the same has to be counted in fixing the pension. He further submits that the respondents did not consider the guidelines issued by the Apex Court and in G.O.Ms.No.212 in which the circumstances, the petitioner falls under the said guidelines. The Apex Court in various precedents decided that employees who are working for over a

¶30

¶31

period should be regularized and the person is entitled for 50% of the sum of minimum pension. He further submits that the petitioner has been working since 1985 to 2018, which comes to 33 years and worked continuosuly in various branches in sanctioned posts, vacancies existed. But the respondents have considered only 17 years of service. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

¶32

Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, the claim of the petitioner that the intermittent entrustment of temporary duties to him in between the year of 1985 and 2002 is to be considered for calculation of eligible terminal benefits and for fixation of pension is an afterthought, as there is no merit exist. The period of engagement of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis, which is clearly mentioned in the internal office circular letter dated 31.08.1985. He further submits that, as per Section 15 of the Syndicate Bank (Employees)’ Pension Regulations, 1995, qualifying service means “Subject to the provisions contained in these regulations, qualifying service of an employee shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed on a permanent basis” . Therefore, learned counsel prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶33

Perused the record.

¶34

¶35

8. On a perusal of Chapter-IV of Syndicate Bank (Employees)’ Pension

¶36

Regulations, 1995, this Court observed the following rules:

¶37

“ 15. Commencement of qualifying service:

¶38

Subject to the provisions contained in these regulations, qualifying service of an employee shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed on a permanent basis.

¶39

20. Counting of past service in the erstwhile Bank:

¶40

In the case of an employee who is permanently transferred to a service in the Bank from any other Bank on merger, amalgamation of any other Bank with the Bank to which these regulations apply, the continuous service rendered by such an employee in any other Bank on permanent basis, if any, followed without interruption, by permanent appointment, or the continuous service rendered under that Bank in a permanent capacity, as the case may be, shall qualify.”

¶41

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of Director General,

¶42

Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India & Anr v. Smt. Magi H

¶43

Desai¹ , allowed the appeal and the operative portion reads as follows:

¶44

“Now so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent that in other departments under the scheme the employees of such departments are entitled to their services rendered as casual/contractual counted for qualifying service for pensionary/service benefits is concerned, merely because some other departments might have such schemes, the respondent shall not be entitled to the same benefit in absence of any scheme in the appellants’ department/department in which the respondent rendered her services. The appellant – Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India is an autonomous independent department/body. As observed hereinabove, neither the rule nor the regularisation scheme provide that services rendered as casual/contractual shall be treated as temporary service and/or the same shall be counted for the purposes of pensionary/service benefits.”

¶45

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on

¶46

considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the

¶47

1 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 248

¶48

¶49

opinion that, in the absence of any scheme stating that the petitioner’s temporary service will be counted towards service or pensionary benefits, he is not entitled to claim any benefits for the services rendered on contractual basis before his regular appointment in the respondent bank. Hence, this Court found no merit in the instant writ petition and devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶50

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶51

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶52

__________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J

¶53

Date : 20-12-2024 BMS

V Damodharam v. the Syndicate Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Damodharam v. the Syndicate Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakunthala Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Mahaboob Basha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Siva Prasada Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. a. Anantha Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Madhavi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Rajasekhara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh