Partly allowed

Mohan Kumar M.G v. the State Bank of Travancore

Kerala HC10 Jul 2017WA/1415/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court appeal concerning an employee who resigned instead of seeking voluntary retirement and subsequently lost pensionary benefits was disposed of by directing the respondent Bank to adopt a humane approach and reconsider the case as one of voluntary retirement.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Bank to take a humane approach and consider treating the appellant's service period as voluntary retirement to restore pension benefits.

Mohan Kumar M.G Vs the State Bank of Travancore — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶5

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2017/19TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶6

WA.No. 1415 of 2017 () IN WP(C).3929/2010

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3929/2010 DATED 27-03-2017

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :

¶9

MOHAN KUMAR M.G FORMERLY WORKING AS SPECIAL ASSISTANT, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PAMPADY BRANCH, RESIDING AT ASHA SADAN, MANARCAD P.0., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001.

¶13

2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM 686001.

¶14

3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(F & A) HEAD OFFICE, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695012

¶15

4. THE CHIEF MANAGER (PPG) F & A, DEPARTMENT, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001.

¶16

5. THE BRANCH MANAGER,` STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PAMPADY BRANCH, KOTTAYAM. 686502.

¶17

R1-5 BY SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, STANDING COUNSEL, SBT

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sou.

¶20

Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ &

¶21

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

¶22

W.A. No. 1415 of 2017

¶23

--------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 10^th day of July, 2017

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ

¶26

The appellant in this intra-court appeal was the writ petitioner. He is aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.3.2017 in W.P(C). No.3929 of 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore and with their consent we are disposing of this appeal at this stage itself.

¶27

The facts are not in dispute. The appellant was working as a Special Assistant in the State Bank of Travancore, Pampady Branch and was residing in Kottayam District. In the year 2002, he was sanctioned three months' leave, during which period he went and took up an independent assignment in the Middle East. While on leave, on 28.1.2003, an application was filed with the Bank whereby the petitioner/appellant sought to “resign” from the services of the Bank. It is not in dispute that the competent authority to accept resignation would be the Deputy Chief Manager of the Bank. From Ext.R1(b) dated 11.2.2003 itself it is

¶28

W.A.1415/17 2

¶29

evident that the Deputy General Manager approved the resignation with effect from 31.1.2003. It appears that later, the petitioner/appellant realised that he had made a mistake. As he had worked in the Bank for more than 20 years prior to his said resignation, he was entitled to seek voluntary retirement instead of resigning. He, by his undated communication (which appears to have received on or about 3.3.2003) requested the Bank that mistakenly he had used the expression 'resignation' instead of 'voluntary retirement' and he must be so treated. The reason was simple. Resignation is cessation of service forfeiting past benefits whereas voluntary retirement does not effect the past service and benefits accrued. While in either case, the person would be entitled to payment of gratuity, provident fund etc., in case of voluntary retirement, he would additionally be entitled to pension. Having served for 20 years, he would have been entitled to seek voluntary retirement and thereby apart from other dues, would become entitled to pension but having resigned he lost pensionary benefits.

¶30

It appears that though Deputy General Manager had already accepted his resignation and he was relieved with effect from 31.1.2003, his letter dated 3.3.2003 did receive

¶31

W.A.1415/17 3

¶32

sympathetic consideration, in as much as Ext.P1 shows that the Chief Manager as late as on 3.12.2003, wrote to the Pension Department that the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Kottayam has advised that the appropriate authority had approved the cessation of service of the petitioner/appellant as voluntary retirement. But thereafter, it seems that the Pension Department did not agree for the change and after several representations made as against loss of pension, which did not yield any result, the writ petition was filed.

¶33

The learned Single Judge has examined the facts and the law and has come to a conclusion that on the facts as aforesaid, the resignation having been duly made and duly accepted, subsequent request for change cannot be made as a matter of right. We agree. We cannot find fault with the Bank in the manner in which it has proceeded to deal with the petitioner/appellant's case. But we can certainly take and ask the Bank to take a humane approach in the matter.

¶34

The petitioner/appellant was entitled to seek voluntary retirement as he was entitled to resign. Having put in 23 years of service, ie., in excess of 20 years, he was competent to seek voluntary retirement which would have assured him pension as well. Without realising the consequences, looking to the

¶35

W.A.1415/17 4

¶36

prospects while working in Middle East and without realising the consequences he resigned. Later, he realised the difference between voluntary retirement and resignation, which had severe consequences , and in a very short time ie., less than a month and a half he indicated to the authorities that in fact he had intended to seek voluntary retirement and inadvertently described it as resignation. He is purported to have given the resignation letter on 28.1.2003 and the letter pointing out the mistake and seeking voluntary retirement is said to be received by the Bank on 3.3.2003. We think that the Bank should take a humane approach in the matter especially as it concerns an employee who had unblemished service of over 23 years and as requested by the Chief Manager( PPG), Head Office himself as noted earlier, consider this case as a case for voluntary retirement rather than resignation.

¶37

With this observation, this appeal stands disposed of.

¶38

Sd/Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice

¶39

Sd/Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Judge

¶40

sou.10/7. // True copy //

Mohan Kumar M.G v. the State Bank of Travancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Kumar M.G v. the State Bank of Travancore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sherly Joy Vs Bank Ofindia

Venugopalan Nair Vs Bank of India

Anil Kumar.a Vs Regional Manager, the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

The Principal Vs Akhil Vijayan

Biju.R Vs the Authorized Officer

Ummachutti Vs Jinesh