Partly allowed

P.Rajasubramain v. the Indian Overses Bank

Madras HC3 Jun 2014WA/744/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court set aside an order rejecting a pension claim by a bank officer compulsorily retired before 1993. Relying on a prior Division Bench decision, the court held that officers retired by way of punishment prior to the 1993 cut-off are eligible for pension and directed the bank to calculate arrears from the date of retirement.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was partly allowed directing the respondent Bank to calculate and pay arrears of pension from the date of compulsory retirement (08.12.1986) within eight weeks.

P.Rajasubramain Vs the Indian Overses Bank — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.06.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶7

W.A.No.744 of 2012

¶8

P.Rajasubramaniam ... Appellant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Indian Overseas Bank, rep. by its Managing Director, No.762, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶11

2.The Chief Manager, The Indian Overseas Bank, No.762, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents

¶12

Writ Appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28.10.2009 in W.P.No.11201 of 2008.

¶13

Presented to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to order No. Pension:1898/07 dated 12.11.2007 passed by the second respondent quash the same and direct the respondents to pay pension to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his retirement, with all consequential benefits including arrears flowing there from together with interest @ 12% p.a.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.R.Raghavan For Respondents : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

This writ appeal is filed against the order made in W.P.No.11201 of 2008 dated 28.10.2009 wherein the appellant has challenged the order dated 12.11.2007 issued by the 2^nd respondent declining payment of pension to the appellant with effect from the date of his compulsory retirement with a direction to pay the consequential benefits including arrears of pension together with interest.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

Brief facts, which led to the filing of writ petition as well as writ appeal are that appellant entered the service of the Indian Overseas Bank as a Clerk in the year 1961 and after getting several promotions, on 15.07.1977, he was promoted as Officer. While serving as Officer, the appellant was issued with a Charge Memo dated 14.8.1985 and enquiry was conducted and enquiry officer submitted his report. The disciplinary authority, on the basis of the enquiry report, terminated the service of the appellant with effect from 08.12.1986. Aggrieved by the said order of termination, appellant filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was dismissed. Against the order of termination, the appellant has filed W.P.No.6240 of 1988 and the same was dismissed by an order dated 20.3.1997. Against which, writ appeal in W.A.No.1998 of 1999 was filed by the appellant. The said writ appeal was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 04.4.2000 modifying the order of termination to one of compulsory retirement with effect from the date of termination i.e. 08.12.1986. Again the appellant filed Review Application against the order dated 04.4.2000 passed in the writ appeal and the same was dismissed by order dated 11.2.2002. Thereafter, the appellant made a representation to the respondent Bank seeking payment of pension and the same was rejected by the 2^nd respondent by an order dated 12.11.2007, which was challenged by the appellant in W.P.No.11201 of 2008.

¶19

The learned single Judge dismissed the above said writ petition and upheld the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 12.11.2007 holding that the appellant having been compulsorily retired from service prior to 01.11.1993, he is not entitled to avail the scheme for sanction of pension, as his compulsory retirement is prior to the cut-off date. In short, the reason assigned was that the persons who were compulsorily retired by way of punishment on or after 01.11.1993 alone are entitled to seek the benefit of the scheme.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the very same issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2768 of 2002 (C.P.Krishnaswamy v. Union of India, rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and others) by judgment dated 10.12.2009 and in Paragraph 37, it was held that the prescription contained in regulations the fixing of cut-off date viz., 01.11.1993, was unjustified, arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory and it was categorically held that irrespective of the agreement dated 29.10.1993, with the employees Union, the said fixation of cut-off date viz., 01.11.1993, cannot operate against the interest of the officers/employees who were in service on or after 01.01.1986 and who happen to compulsorily retire by way of punishment even before 01.11.1993 and regulation 33(1) is applicable to such of those officers/employees also.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has not

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

disputed the said decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and also fairly submitted that the said decision rendered by the Division Bench in this aspect has become final as no Special Leave Petition was filed. Thus, the issue raised in this writ appeal is covered by the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in W.A.No.2768 of 2002, dated 10.12.2009.

¶24

We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the Division Bench order, referred above.

¶25

It is seen from the records that appellant was terminated from service based on proved misconduct by order dated 08.12.1986 and the writ petition (W.P.No.6240 of 1988) filed by the appellant, challenging the order of termination was dismissed by the single Judge by an order dated 20.3.1997 and the writ appeal (W.A.No.1998 of 1999) preferred by the appellant was partly allowed by an order dated 04.4.2000, modifying the order of termination as that of compulsory retirement with effect from the date of termination i.e. 08.12.1986. The said order has also become final.

¶26

It is relevant to point out at this juncture that the difference between terminated officer and compulsorily retired officer must be given a meaning. It is a settled proposition of law that the terminated officer will not be eligible for any terminal benefits and the officer who is compulsorily retired will normally get terminal benefits.

¶27

The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2768 of 2002 dated 10.12.2009 held that fixing the cut-off date to sanction and pay pension to such of those persons who were compulsorily retired as punishment on or after 01.11.1993 is irrational and arbitrary. The operative portion of the Division Bench order reads as follows:-

¶28

“28. We are also convinced that regulation 32(b) having specifically provided for covering those employees who are prematurely retired in public interest namely those who would fall in the category of compulsorily retired employees in public interest and also employees who were retired for any other reason specified in the service regulations or settlement which would cover other cases of premature retirement which would include compulsory retirement by way of punishment and there could be no other category that would fall within the above said expression premature retirement and those retired by the bank within the expression for any other reason specified in service regulations or settlement.

¶29

We therefore hold that an officer/employee who is compulsorily retired by way of punishment would also

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

fall within the category of premature retirement and consequently it cannot be said that he would fall outside the pension regulations in order to exclude him from being eligible to claim pension under the pension regulations in particular regulation 33(1). ..

¶32

Having regard to our conclusion on regulation 33 (1) where we have found based on the prescription contained in other regulations that fixing of cut-off date viz., 01.11.1993, was unjustified, arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, we hold that irrespective of the agreement dated 29.10.1993, with the employees Union, the said fixation of cut-off date viz., 01.11.1993, cannot operate against the interest of the officers/employees who were in service after 01.01.1986 and who happen to compulsorily retire by way of punishment even before 01.11.1993, for whom also regulation 33(1) is applicable. Therefore, they are entitled to invoke regulations 33(1) and the authority competent is bound to decide their claim in accordance with law.”

¶33

From the order of the bank dated 12.11.2007, it is evident that the only reason stated for rejecting the claim of the appellant was, the date of compulsory retirement is 08.12.1986 i.e. prior to 01.11.1993. The said issue having been settled as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the order of rejection of pension dated 12.11.2007 which was upheld by the learned single Judge by order dated 28.10.2009 are liable to be set aside. However, the issue being settled only on 10.12.2009, the appellant is not justified in claiming pension with interest from the date of compulsory retirement i.e. from 08.12.1986.

¶34

In the result, this writ appeal is partly allowed with a direction to the respondent Bank to calculate the pension payable to the appellant from the date of compulsory retirement i.e. from 08.12.1986 and pay arrears of pension as per the scheme, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the respondent Bank to adjust the amounts payable by the appellant, if any, from the arrears of pension payable to the appellant. No costs.

¶35

Assistant Registrar

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

bbr

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

¶40

1.The Managing Director, The Indian Overseas Bank, No.762, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶41

2.The Chief Manager, The Indian Overseas Bank, No.762, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶42

1 cc to Mr.Row & Reddy,Advocate, SR.No.22586 1 cc to Mr.R.Raghavan,Advocate, SR.No.22715

¶43

W.A.No.744 of 2012
rsy(co)
pmk.5.6.2014

¶44

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Rajasubramain v. the Indian Overses Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Rajasubramain v. the Indian Overses Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management of Vs the Workmen Rep by

Three Star Poultry Parm Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

The Disciplinary Authority Vs R.Balachandran

Coimbatore District Wholesale Vs Coimbatore City Municipal

M.Thilagam Vs D.Sabitha I.A.S

S.Esakkiyadum Perumal, Vs State of Tamil Nadu