Allowed

M.S. Ramchander, Secbad v. State Bank of Hyd. Hyd. and 2 Others

Telangana HC19 Oct 2023WP/21387/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a writ petition seeking leave encashment. The court held that a petitioner awarded compulsory retirement as a major punishment is entitled to terminal benefits including leave encashment, setting aside the bank's order denying such benefit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the impugned order dated 06.03.2009 setting was set aside and respondents are directed to pay leave encashment within six weeks.

M.S. Ramchander, Secbad Vs State Bank of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 21387 OF 2009

¶8

Between:

¶9

M.S. Ramchander, S/o.lVI.Somaiah, Hindu Fl/o. H.No. 12-8-323, Alugaddabavi, Mettuguda, Secunderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

State Bank of Hyderabad represented^{by its Managing Director,Head office,} Gunfoundry, Abids, Hyderabad

¶13

2 The General Manager (Operations), State Bank of^{Hyderabad, Gunfoundry,} Abids, Hyderabad

¶14

The Deputy General Manager^(H), State^{Bankof Hyderabad, Varakantham} Complei, Kachiguda'X' Road, Zonal Office,^Hyderabad.

¶15

...RES'ONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^{therewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to call for records relating to Order bearing No.DGM(H)/PER/1696^{dt. 6-} 3-2009 of the 3'd Respondent and declare^{the same as illegal,arbitrary contrary} to SBH (Officers), Service Regulations^{1979 by issuing appropriatewrit order or} direction more^particularly in the nature of^{Mandamusandconsequentlydirect} the respondents to^pay the Leave^{Encashment Amount due to the petitioner with} interest and also interest on delayed^{payment of terminal benefits forthwith.}

¶17

LA. NO: 1 OF 2009^(WPMP. NO:^{27787 OF2009)}

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circgmstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Court maybe pleased} direct the respondents to^pay the^{leave encashment amount due to the petitioner} pending final decision in the main W.P.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.^{RAMA SUBBA RAO}

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI^{A. KRISHNAM RAJU}

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.21387 of 2009

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Ca lling tn question the legality of the Order passed by respondent No.3 vide DGM(ll)/PER4696, dated 05.03.2009 denying the benefit

¶27

of Leave Encashment, the writ petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

2 The averments as per the writ affidavit are as follows:

¶29

The petitione r was a ppointed as Typist-cu m-Clerk on

¶30

15.09.1.975, and later he was promoted to the post of JMSI in August 1985 and to the post of MM-ll in December 1993. On the allegations of irregular sanction of loans, the petitioner was suspended from service on L5.12.L997 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, and he was awarded major punishment of Compulsory Retirement vide Order dated 02.06.2000, and the said order attained finality as the petitioner has not appealed against it. The petitioner made a representation dated 1,2.09.2005 for release of terminal benefits, however, he was not paid terminal benefits and he had to file W.p.No.33i.5 of 2006 before this

¶31

Court, and this Court by Order dated 25.09.2005 directed the respondent No.1

¶32

therein to consider his representation and pass appropriate orders. ln pursuance

¶33

¶34

of the order of this Hon'ble court, respondents have paid an amount of Rs.3,42,o67 on 15.02.2007, and the said amount did not incrude Leave Encashment.

¶35

3 The petitioner made a representation dated j.0.12.200g for

¶36

payment of Leave Encashment, and the respondent authorities vide Letter No.DGM(H)/PER[361 dated 07.0]..2009, replied that in terms of Regulation No.57 of sBH (officers) service Regulations, 1979, an officer whose services are terminated or compulsorily retired as a punishment would not be entitled to leave encashment and travelling allowances as provided in Regulation No.3g and 46 of the said Regulations. The petitioner made another representation dated

¶37

19.0L.2009, which was received by the respondents on 22.Ot.2OOg along with copy of Circular dated L5.02.2001

¶38

4 It is the case of the petitioner that he was compulsorily retired on 02.06.2000 and therefore the Circular dated 15.02.2001 issued by respondent

¶39

No.L-Bank clarifying that an officer whose services are terminated or who are compulsorily retired as punishment as per Regulation No.67 of SBH(Officers) service Regulations, L979 will not be entitled for leave encashment and travelling

¶40

allowance as provided for in Regulation No.38 and 46 of the Regulations, is not r{

¶41

applicable to him and that the circular has no retrospective effect; and therefore the petitioner is entitled to receive the benefit of Leave Encashment.

¶42

5 Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit.The sum and substance of the counter affidavit are that as per Regulation 67(h) of the of sBH (officers) service Regurations, r.979, the petitioner was awarded a major punishment of Compulsory Retirement which is one of the penalties imposed in addition to Removal and Dismissal from Service.

¶43

It is also stated in the counter that the amendment was brought to the service Regulations, 1979 and that the circular dated 15.02.2001 is only a clarification which is applicable to all persons who claim Leave Encashment and Travelling Allowance in terms of Regurations 3g and 46 of the Regurations and therefore the Circular applies to the petitioner as well.

¶44

It is further stated that the petitioner wa, not retired as per Regulation 19 of the Regulations, the proviso to the Regulation 39 has no applicationto the petitioner's case as he was not retired from Bank service under Regulation L9, but was awarded the punishment of compursory Retirement under Regulation 67 as a penalty, and therefore an Officer who was imposed with

¶45

¶46

a penalty of Compulsory Retirement under Regulation 57 cannot be equated with one who is superannuated or retired under Regulation L9 of the Regulations.

¶47

It is further stated that the Bank has taken a Cheque No.500004019 dated 12.05.2005 for Rs.1,,82,2381- towards^PF contribution and a^Cheque No.001780 dated 11.05.2005 for an amount of Rs.1,59,829/-^{towards Gratuity} and he was advised to collect the same vide^Letter No.DGM(H)/DPlPR/M.S.Ramchander/.19^{dated08.06.2005,but the petitioner} did not respond for collecting the cheques^{and he has received the chequesonly} on 07.02.2007; and therefore the claim^{of the petitionerthat he is entitledto} interest on delayed^payment is not tenable

¶48

It is further stated that the^{petitionerfiled WP No'21387 of 2009} before this Court and that the respondents^{in obedience to the directionsof this} Court in WPMP No.27787 of 2009 in WP No.21387^{of 2OO9,dated 22.06.2010,} reexamined the case of the^petitioner with regard to^{his entitlementto Leave} Encashment and passed order dated 03.08.2010 reiterating^{that he is not entitled} to leave encashment as the same was lapsed on termination^{of his serviceby} imposition of the penalty of Compulsory Retirement

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for

¶53

respondents.

¶54

7 Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the court to paragraph 38 of the state Bank of Hyderabad (officers') service

¶55

Regulations, 1979. The relevant portion of the said rule position reads as follows:

¶56

"Lopse of Leave:

¶57

All leove shall lopse on the deoth of the officer or if he ceases to be in the service of the bonk provided thot where an officer dies while in service there sholl be poyoble to his legol representotives sums which would hove been poyable to the officer if he hod availed of the leove, thot he hod occumuloted ot the time of his death.

¶58

Sove os provided below, oll leove to the credit of an officer sholl lopse on resignotion, retirement, deoth, dischorge, dismissal or termination.

¶59

Provided thot where an officer retires Irom the Bonk,s service, he shail be eligible to be poid o sum equivalent to the emoluments of ony period, not exceeding 240 days of privilege leove thot he hod occumuloted."

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of

¶61

the Court to EFFECT OF PUNTSHMENT CHART-B dealtng with,,Effect of

¶62

Dismissol, Removol from service, Compulsory Retirement etc., on Terminor Benefits"; contends that the petitioner has been compursoriry retired from

¶63

¶64

service and therefore he is eligible for leave encashment as per the

¶65

terminal benefits under Chart-8.

¶66

8 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance

¶67

on paragraph 19 of the said Regulations, dealing with age of retirement,

¶68

which reads as follows:

¶69

'Age of Retirement:

¶70

(1) An officer sholl retire from the service of the Bonk on attoining the oge of sixty yeors or upon the completion of thirty yeors' of service or thirty yeors' pensionoble service if he is a member of the pension Fund whichever occurs first.

¶71

Provided thot the Competent Authority may, at its discretion, extend the period of service of an officer who hos attained the oge of ftftVeight years or has completed thitty years' pensionable service or thirty yeors' service os the cose moy be should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank, so however, thot the service rendered by the concerned officer beyond 58 years of age except to the extent of the period of leove due ot thot time will not count for purpose of pension.

¶72

Provided further that on officer may, ot the discretion of the executive committee, be retired from the Bonk's service ofter he hos ottained 50 years of oge or has completed j0 yeors' service or 30 yeors' pensionable service as the cose moy be, by giving him three months' notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof.

¶73

Provided further thot on officer who has completed 25 years' service or 25 years'of pensionable service os the cose moy be, permitted by

t. w"'

the Executive committee to retire from the Bank's service subject to his giving three months'notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof unless this requirement is wholly or partly woived.

¶78

(2) Notwithstonding onything to the controry in these regulations, no officer who hos ceosed to be in the Bonk's service by the operation of, or by virtue of, ony provision sholl be deemed to hove retired from the Bonk's service for the purpose of the Stote Bank of HYDERABADEmployees' Pension Fund Rules unless such cessotion of service has been sonctioned os retirement for the purpose of the soid pension fund rules. (os per pension fund scheme any officer with o minimum service of 20 yeors of service con only opt for Voluntary Retirement).

¶79

(j) ln case disciplinory proceedings under the relevant regulations of service have been initioted ogoinst on officer before he ceases to be in the Bank's service by the operotion of, or by virtue of ony said regulations or the provisions of these regulations the disciplinory proceedings, moy ot the discretion o the Monaging Director; be continued and concluded by the outhority by which the proceedings were initioted in the monner provided for in the soid regulotions as if the officer continued to be in service, so howeve7 thot he sholl be deemed to be in service only for the purpose of the continuonce ond conclusion of such proceedings.

¶80

Explonation

¶81

An officer will retire on the lost doy of the month in which he completed the stipuloted service or oge of retirement (lBA letter No.F/OSRQ9, doted 2j-12-81, if dote of birth is 1't of a month, he will retire on the close of the lost doy of preceding month in which he completes oge of retirement; if 7't Morch is DOB retirement is on 28th Feb. lf it is ofter 1't, he will retire on the lost doy of thot month)."

¶82

¶83

9' Learned counser for the respondents finary contends that the petitioner has been compursoriry Retired under major penarty, and therefore he is not entitled to reave encashment and the order impugned in the writ petition doesn't suffer from any illegality.

¶84

10' Considering the arguments of both the rearned counser, it is pertinent to note that EFFECT oF puNTsHMENT CHART-B dealing with Effect of Dismissal, Removarfrom Service, compursory Retirement etc., is not in dispute.

¶85

Further, the various terminal benefits entitled to by a person on account of Compulsory Retirement are pension, Leave Encashment, and TraveIing expenses under para 43 of DTCS.

¶86

In view of the same, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not eligible for the terminar benefit of reave encashment, and therefore the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

¶87

1.1. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the Order passed bv respondent No.3 vide DGM([)/PERA696, dated 06.03.2009. The respondent authorities are directed to pay the reave encashment to the petitioner as per his accumurated reave, within six weeks from the date of receipt

;.,
r-<

of a copy of this order. rnterrocutory apprications, if any pending in this writ

¶92

petition, shall stand disposed of in consequence. There shall be no order as to

¶93

costs.

¶94

//TRUE COPY//

¶95

SD/- G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGIPTRAR

¶96

¶97

SECTION OFFICER

¶98

To, 1. The Managing Director,^{StateBankof Hyderabad,Headoffice, Gunfoundry,} Abids. Hvderabad

¶99

TIJeenLiit vanager^{(operations),State Bank of Hyderabad, Gunfoundry,} Abids, Hyderabad

¶100

.) in" o"piliv C"neral^{lvlanager(H), StateBankof Hyderabad, Varakantham} Comolex. Kachiouda^'X' Road,^{Zonal Office, Hyderabad.}

¶101

on"'Cc io SRI X.. RAI/A^{SUBBARAo, Advocate} toPqcl 5. One CC to SRI A.^{KRISHNAM RAJU, Advocate} [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1911012023

ORDER

WP.No.21387 of 2009

oG T l-i
L.
(<br>i
-j 07ilIu2W
ia
'./.'
'-.?

¶109

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶110

-S{.- s-
\ .*

M.S. Ramchander, Secbad v. State Bank of Hyd. Hyd. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S. Ramchander, Secbad v. State Bank of Hyd. Hyd. and 2 Others

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

B.Durgaiah,Hyd,and 12 Otrs Vs CPDCL,CHAIRMAN,MD,HYD,AND3

B.Thirupathi,and 22 Otrs Vs Govt.of Ap,Prl.Scy,Energy,and 5

Manju Singh Vs The Government of India

K.Venkat Appa Rao Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Y. Sivakumar, Hyd Vs Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Hyd and 2 Others

Dalbeer Singh,Medak Dist Vs Ganapathi Sugar Industries Ltd,Rep.by Chairman,Hyd,and 2 Otrs