Writ petitions by retired employees of State Bank of India seeking revision of pension by counting suspension period as duty were dismissed. The court held that petitioners failed to challenge the suspension order timely.
The writ petitions were dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 W.P.(MD)NO.2695 OF 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)Nos.2695 & 3074 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2306 & 2620 of 2020
W.P.(MD)No.2695 of 2020
P.Manoharan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1/7
2 W.P.(MD)NO.2695 OF 2020
Melur – 625 106, Madurai District.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in MDU/RBO IV/2019-20/29 dated 30.08.2019 on the file of respondent No.4 and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the respondent No.4 to count the period from 05.05.2001 to 08.02.2009 for the purpose of terminal and pensionary benefits and consequently to revise the pension of the petitioner with retrospective effect.
W.P.(MD)No.3074 of 2020
R.S.Mani ... Petitioner
Vs.
2/7
3 W.P.(MD)NO.2695 OF 2020
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in MDU/RBO IV/2019-20/29 dated 30.08.2019 on the file of respondent No.4 and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the respondent No.4 to count the period from 17.05.2001 to 09.02.2009 for the purpose of terminal and pensionary benefits and consequently to revise the pension of the petitioner with retrospective effect.
(in both W.Ps.)
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Respondents: Mr.V.R.Rajan, Standing Counsel.
3/7
4 W.P.(MD)NO.2695 OF 2020
C O M M O N O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank.
2. The writ petitioners were originally employed in the respondent bank. Disciplinary action was taken against them. They were suspended from service. At the conclusion of the disciplinary action, penalty was imposed on the writ petitioners. The petitioners have since retired from service. Request was made for treating the suspension period as one of duty. It was rejected. The rejection orders are put to challenge in these writ petitions.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions and called upon this Court to set aside the impugned orders and grant relief as prayed for.
4/7
5 W.P.(MD)NO.2695 OF 2020
4. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit and took me through its contents.
5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.
6. In the punishment order, it was clearly stated that the suspension period will be treated as one of suspension and not as duty period. The writ petitioners failed to challenge the same during the relevant point of time. The petitioners slept like Rip Van Winkle and woke up only long after their retirement. In as much as the punishment order was not challenged within reasonable time, interfering at this stage will not arise. These writ petitions stand dismissed. Even if bipartite settlement entered into between the association and the management is taken into account, it will make no difference to the eventual outcome of the writ petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.11.2022
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU
5/7
To:
6/7
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
W.P.(MD)Nos.2695 & 3074 of 2020
08.11.2022
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with an order denying seniority benefits to retired employees who failed to challenge the suspension order during their service.
Whether the period of suspension can be treated as duty period for pension calculation.
P.Manoharan
R.S.Mani
State Bank of India
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
