Dismissed

State Bank of India v. Ravinder Kumar (through Legal Heirs)

Delhi HC3 Apr 2018W.P.(C)/5798/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State Bank of India appealed against an industrial tribunal award granting leave encashment to a deceased workman removed from service. The High Court upheld the award, finding the Tribunal correctly applied the Bipartite Settlement terms and the Bank's circular was inapplicable due to timing and lack of cross-examination on delay.

What did the court decide?

Petition and application dismissed as it was without merit.

State Bank of India Vs Ravinder Kumar (through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Order: April 03, 2018

¶3

W.P.(C) 5798/2017 & CM 24139/2018

¶4

STATE BANK OF INDIA ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Shiv K. Tyagi, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

RAVINDER KUMAR (THROUGH: LEGAL HEIRS)

¶8

.....Respondent

¶9

Through: Nemo

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶11

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶12

Impugned Award of 19^th September, 2016 grants `46,315.32/- with interest @10% per annum with costs towards leave encashment of 84 days of privilege leave due to deceased-workman on the date of his removal from service i.e. 22^nd January, 2001.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that workman- Ravinder Kumar was removed from service by way of punishment and after delay of seven years, the claim petition had been filed. It is submitted that in a case of „removal from service‟ , leave encashment is not payable. To submit so, attention of this Court is drawn to petitioner-Bank’s Circular of 8^th July, 2015 (Annexure P-10) .

¶14

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award and the material on record, I find that leave encashment has been granted to respondent by learned Tribunal while observing as under: -

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

W.P.(C) 5798/2017

¶17

“That since the removal of the workman from service vide order of the Banks Asstt. General Manager dated 22.01.2001, being under Clause 21(iv) (b) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 14.02.1995 was „with superannuation benefits‟, as explained in paragraph 3 hereinbefore, the applicant was entitled to the benefit of „Encashment of Privilege Leave‟, which is one of the superannuation benefits.”

¶18

Reliance placed by petitioner’s counsel upon Circular of 8^th July, 2015 (Annexure P-10) is of no avail as the said Circular relates to a period after petitioner was removed from service. The reference in this Circular to a letter of 23^rd April, 2007 is of no consequence because the claim petition was filed by respondent prior thereto. There is nothing on record to indicate that at the relevant time, the leave encashment was not payable to an employee, who has been removed from service. The aforequoted reasoning of the learned Tribunal has not been assailed before this Court. So far as the delay in filing the claim petition is concerned, I find that there is no effective cross-examination of respondent on the delay aspect and so, on this ground, impugned Award cannot be faulted with. 5. In light of the aforesaid, this petition and the application are dismissed being without merit.

¶19

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶20

APRIL 03, 2018 s

¶21

Page 2 of 2

¶22

W.P.(C) 5798/2017

State Bank of India v. Ravinder Kumar (through Legal Heirs)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ravinder Kumar (through Legal Heirs)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudha Saxena Vs Union of India and Ors.

Indsynergy Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Arun Pratap Singh Vs State (Nct of Dlehi) & Ors.

Sh. Ashwani Kumar and Ors. Vs M/S Institute of Hotel Management, Catering and Nutrition, Pusa and Anr.

Tushar Ranjan Mohanty Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sh. Murari Thakur Vs Indian Convents School and Ors.

Ramesh Chander Vs Union of India and Ors.

Surat Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sudha Saxena Vs Union of India and Ors.

J.R.William Singh Vs the Institute of Chartered Acc

Shahwaiz Ahmed and Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Jamil Malik Vs Motilal Nehru College (Evening) University of Delhi & Anr.

Nilofer Rizvi Vs Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors.

Sh. Shyam Vs Motilal Nehru College (Evening) and Anr.