Allowed

Harbans Lal Raheja v. U.C.O. Bank and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jul 2009CWP/17898/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a bank order denying terminal benefits after his removal from service. The court followed its prior order in a similar case involving another employee, allowing the petition and directing the bank to release benefits with interest.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order quashed; respondents directed to release retiral benefits within two months with interest at 6% per annum from the date of removal.

Harbans Lal Raheja Vs U.C.O. Bank… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.W.P. No.17898 of 2007 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P. No.17898 of 2007 (O&M)

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: JULY 21, 2009

Harbans Lal Raheja

.....PETITIONER

Versus

UCO Bank and others

....RESPONDENTS

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

¶11

Present: Mr.Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate and Mr.Khagesh Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶13

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing the order/letter dated 23.4.2007 (Annexure P8), whereby the claim of the petitioner for release of terminal benefits has been declined; with a further direction to release those benefits to the petitioner from the date of his removal from service along with interest.

¶15

In the present case, the petitioner was working as Clerk in the respondent-bank. In the year 1999, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for certain misconduct. After holding the inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 31.5.2000, awarded the penalty of removal of services of the petitioner with the condition that his removal will not be disqualification for his future employment and he will be eligible to receive

¶16

C.W.P. No.17898 of 2007 (O&M) -2-

¶17

his terminal benefits as are admissible to him. In the same year, a similar order was also passed in case of one Shri H.P.S. Chawla, who was working as Special Assistant in the respondent-bank. In his case also it was specifically stated in the order of removal that he will be entitled for terminal benefits. In both the cases, after removal of the services, the petitioner and Shri H.P.S.Chawla were not given the terminal benefits as per the UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as `the Regulations') on the plea that in view of Regulation 22(1), the removal from the service of the bank shall entail forfeiture of entire past service of the employee. Consequently, they shall not be qualified for pensionary benefits.

¶18

In the meantime, Shri H.P.S. Chawla filed CWP No.13284 of 2001 in this Court challenging the action of the respondent-bank. The said writ petition was contested by the respondent-bank on the aforesaid plea. This Court vide order dated 21.2.2007 allowed the writ petition and rejected the contention of the respondent-bank, while observing as under:-

¶19

“ The punishment authority while imposing punishment from removal of service had specifically considered the grant of retiral benefits to the petitioner so that he may pull on his life in “dreary world”. After making these observations, the punishing authority directed that the petitioner would be eligible to receive the retiral benefits as are admissible to him. The admissibility has to be seen in the context of the qualifying service and according to Rule 14 referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner a person becomes entitled to pension after he has rendered 10 years service. In the present case, petitioner has rendered about 30 years when he was removed from service. Therefore, under Regulation 14,

¶20

C.W.P. No.17898 of 2007 (O&M) -3-

¶21

he was qualified for pension. Regulation 22(1) reproduced above lays down that the removal from service shall entail forfeiture of service but the punishing authority has specifically passed the order for retiral benefits. An exception has been created to Rule 22 by the punishing authority himself and that order has been upheld by the appellate authority. Therefore, regulation 22 has to be read in the context of the order passed by the punishing authority as well as by the appellate authority. Moreover, the refusal of pension under regulation 22 could have been made only by an authority superior to the authority who has passed the punishment order and who has passed the appellate order. Since both these orders stand, therefore, effect of regulation 22 has been negatived and the petitioner is entitled to gratuity and pension under Regulation 14 of the Regulations.

¶22

Similarly, under the rules, the petitioner is entitled to gratuity in case (a) retirement and superannuation (b) voluntary retirement of regulation (c) termination of service by the ban or (d) death whilst in the service of the bank in the manner and subject to the condition hereinafter mentioned. The case of the petitioner does not fall in any of the exception. Rule 10(b) again will not apply because of the specific approval granted by the punishing authority for the retiral benefits.

¶23

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent and it is held that the respondent has no right to hold back pension and gratuity of the petitioner in the face of the specific order passed by the punishing authority on 2.6.2000 which was upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 18.9.2000.

¶24

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release these benefits to the petitioner without delay and

¶25

C.W.P. No.17898 of 2007 (O&M) -4-

¶26

within the period of two months from today. If the respondents failed to do so, the petitioner would be entitled to get back those benefits with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 19.2.2000 i.e. from the date when the order was passed by the appellate authority.”

¶27

In view of the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the representations of the petitioner for release of the terminal benefits were kept pending by the respondent-bank. After the aforesaid decision of this Court, the petitioner served legal notice dated 26.3.2007 (Annexure P-7) on the respondent-bank. But the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 23.4.2007(Annexure P8) in spite of the fact that the plea of the respondent-bank was declined by this Court in case of a similarly situated employee. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant petition challenging the said order.

¶28

After notice of motion, written statement was filed in which the respondent-bank took the same plea as was taken in case of Shri H.P.S. Chawla. It has also been pleaded that the claim of the petitioner is time barred and the writ petition filed by him is hit by the principle of delay and laches. When the matter was taken up for hearing, counsel for the respondents took the stand that against the judgment dated 21.2.2007 passed in CWP No. 13284 of 2001, the respondent-bank had filed SLP in the Supreme Court and the same was pending. On the said stand taken by the respondents, the instant petition was adjourned sine die to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the said SLP.

¶29

Now the petitioner has filed CM No.11100 of 2009 for listing the main case as the SLP filed by the respondent-bank before the Supreme

¶30

C.W.P. No.17898 of 2007 (O&M) -5-

¶31

Court against the order dated 21.2.2007 passed by this Court in CWP No.13284 of 2001, was dismissed on 21.4.2009. The said application was allowed and the main writ petition was ordered to be listed for hearing today.

¶32

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

¶33

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is identical with that of Shri H.P.S. Chawla and the same is squarely covered by the decision dated 21.2.2007 rendered by this Court in CWP No.13284 of 2001. Counsel for the respondents could not controvert this factual and legal position. However, learned counsel submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on account of delay and laches. He submits that the petitioner was removed from service in the year 2000 and he has filed the instant petition in the year 2007. Therefore, keeping in view this fact, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief.

¶34

In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted. The petitioner and Shri H.P.S. Chawla were removed from service by the Disciplinary Authority on 31.5.2000 and 2.6.2000, respectively, with specific condition that their removal will not be disqualification for their future employment and they will be admissible to their terminal benefits as are admissible to them. In spite of this specific condition, the retiral benefits were not released to them. In case of Shri H.P.S. Chawla, this Court vide order dated 21.2.2007 passed in CWP No.13284 of 2001 rejected the contention of the respondent-bank and allowed the writ petition, and directed the respondents to release the retiral benefits to him without delay within a period of two months from the date

¶35

C.W.P. No.17898 of 2007 (O&M) -6-

¶36

of passing of the order. The claim of the petitioner remained pending during the pendency of the said writ petition. After the decision of the said writ petition, the petitioner served legal notice dated 26.3.2007 (Annexure P7) on the respondents. The respondents without assigning any reason and distinguishing the case of the petitioner with that of Shri H.P.S. Chawla, rejected the claim of the petitioner. During the course of arguments, counsel for the respondents could not point out any dissimilarity in case of the petitioner and Shri H.P.S. Chawla. On merits, he could not controvert that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court in CWP No.13284 of 2001. Even after the decision of the said case and dismissal of the SLP filed by the respondents against the said decision, the claim of the petitioner was declined by the respondents without any reason and justification. In my opinion, the rightful claim of the petitioner cannot be denied only on the basis of delay, particularly when the respondents have failed in their duty to release the said amount within time. The respondent-bank cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own delay in not releasing the retiral benefits to the petitioner in spite of the specific condition imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

¶37

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.4.2007 (Annexure P8) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to release the retiral benefits to the petitioner without delay within a period of two months from today. In case the respondents failed to do so, the petitioner will be entitled to get back those benefits with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from 31.5.2000.

¶38

July 21, 2009 vkg

¶39

(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

Harbans Lal Raheja v. U.C.O. Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harbans Lal Raheja v. U.C.O. Bank and Ors.

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

S.S.Parmar & Ors. Vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam & Nar.

A.S. Chawla Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sat Parkash Goel Vs Hvpn Ltd. through Its MD Shakti Bhawan Pkl&Ors

Geeta Rani Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhvir Singh Vs S.G.P.C.

Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Dhbvnl etc.