In a writ petition regarding denial of pension, the High Court held that the petitioner failed to meet the 20-year pensionable service requirement after deducting suspension and leave periods, thus rejecting his claim and dismissing the suit.
Writ petition dismissed without 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.
\
[3301 ]
I l l I
tl lr
)
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITIO NN O:21587 OF 2014
Between:
P Veerrap, S/o late Laxminarayana, Aged 65 years, Occ: Retired Clerk cum_ cashier, state Bank of rndia, ttarsrmiuptt,-wirli-ga-t'oistrict, r/o H.No. 4-73lA road no.3, Srinivasapuram cotony, Guriamgrdr, s"rLJinrgar, R.R. District.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferabry writ of tr/andamus decraring the action of the respondents in not sanctioning pension and gratuity and other benefits as illegal, arbitrary, and viorative of principles of naturar justice and consequenry direct the respondents to rerease pension and continue to pay and further direct the respondents to pay aI other benefits with interest on the derayed payment of pension and gratuity and increments from 1992 to 2oo2 by setting aside the retter dated 23-04-2009 issued by the respondent no.1 .
l.A. NO:1OF 2014(WPMP. NO:27084 oF 20141
Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supporl of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent no 1 to consider and dispose of the representation dated 14-07-
I t
I I i i j i I I
2014 submitted by the petitroner for release of amount due to hrm along with rnterest thereon, pending the drsposal of writ cetition in the interest ofjustice.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 37659 OF 20 19.)
Petitron under Section1 51 CPCpraying thatin the circumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in supportol the petrtion,theHighCourt maybe pleasedto direct the 1st Respondent torelease incrementsatld pension, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
lA NO: 1 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstatedin the affidavit frled in supportof the pelrtion. the l{igh court maybe pleasedto come on record as LRs of thedeceased writ pe-itioner (P.Veerra;u)in WPMP.No. 2708412014 as Well as in WP.No.2158712014in the interest of justrce
Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI KOWTURU PAVANKUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRIP.V.SURYLNARAYANA FOR
M/s. V.UMA DtiVl
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.21 587 0F 2014
ORDER:
This writ Petition is fil"cr chale.rging the a<:tion of the respondents in not sanctioning pension, gratLlity and ol her rrencrrts to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently, to direct thc respo.clents to rclcase ltension to the petitioner and continue to pay all otl-rer bcnefits rvith interest on the delayed payments of pension and gratuity zrnrl incremcr.rts for the period from 1998 to 2OO2 by setting aside the in.rpr-rgrred lerter, dated 23.04.2OOg, issued by the 1sr respondcr)t.
.I
II
PK.J itp 21537 2014ts-.-i
thC fr.rrther casc ci 11lc I)cLllroner tllatth(] l:.rsl)ollcleLltsh:r'c ll:ricl tlr, l).F. and other ant()Llllts butthcy have not settleclhis pension'I[r this rcg:rrd, the l't rcspondent,t.'irlrulctter, claLcd23.04-2OO9,has stateclthat as the 1;ctitionerhas not cornpleted20 years of1>etlsionablc set-vicc' afler clcducting the Drtraordtnar-vLeave Peliod and SuspetlsionI'eriod.ht: is not cntitlecl forpcnsion.Ilcnce,thc prcsenl writ pctition'
wp 21587 2OL4
punishment orcler, therespot)detltsl-rirvepaid all anloulllof Rs 2,174/- torvarcls P. F. refund.As such, he is cntitlcclftrr intcrcst on thc delayed payment. It is further contenclcclthat thcpetitioner submitted representations on 28.07.2Ot 1 and14.07 2Ol4rcquestingthe respondents to release the intereston tlle delaved p:r,vrnetrt of P-F.and other benefits.
JI
I.r-rns of ' Dischurgc rr rIlr Srrl)ei-fu)nrlatiorr Berrefit s as toulcl be tlrrc otht:nvisc .it that st:rgc ar rcl lvitl-r, rut d isclualification frorn fnt u rc curplovnrcut" i1s l)rovidcd frir rn l)lrragraph 521(5)(b) of tl're Sastr-v Au,ard r/tr,, Paragraphs i,9-28 ol thc Dcsar Au,errd as amended n thc 6!h Bipaltitc Settlcnlent. It rs ftrrthcr r-ontendecl that during his sen ice, the petltiorler has av:rilecl Extra Ordinan' [,r:avc lor a periocl of 2 1,cars ernd 2 dirys :rncl hc u,:rs undcr suspensior-r for :r pcriod of 3 yeaLrs and 10 nlontlts. As sltch, the tolal service of lhe petrtioncr. aftc'r adjusting the pcriod of Extla Orrlir-rar1' Leave and Suspension Perrod, .s arrived at 15 years, I O rnortths a;rcl 25 cla,r's. IIcncc, thc rcspor-rclcnts art:justihcd in rejectirtg thc <'lairn ol thc pctitroncr on the grourld that he has not completcd 20 ycars of pcnsionable sen,ice. It rs further contenrled that without challenging t he pu.rrishmr:nt order, dated 14.O9.2OO2, the petitioner cannot seek a relief to rnclude tirc Suspcnsion Pcriod for courLting the ovcrall scn ice ol thc 1;ctitioncr
PK,) wp21587-2014
' 7
I I I I ! l i
.,s\
-i ^i^'-l1 4 09 2oo2 '\'I1erei, hcrvas challengethe punishmcntordel Iu!rr\ v imposedwith ll-re punishmentof "Dischargewith SuperannuationBenehts aswould be due otherwiseat that stage and lt'ithor'rtdisqualificatton from futureemployment"' This Court is of the consideredvierv that uniessthe punishmentorder' dated l4'Og'2OO2'ls set asicle'the Petitioneris not entitiedfor regularizatron of suspensionperio<1i e'' frorn 03 12 1998 to 2a.o9-2002
6
I I I i I I I I i
\
<br>
? K.l ,,vp 2158/ 2014
hc has not lirllillecl iLtty ol' tlrcct itet-i:r lbr- payment of pensiorl, d c t zrilcrl airove- Llcrtce. tht't-c arcno tncrits ln lhis u'rtt petitionzrnci tirc saI)tc 1s iirLlrle to Iri: c]islnisst:cl.
10 Accorclinglv. thcWrit ['etitiol.rrs clis'missed
MiscelL:rr-it'ot-ts:rllpllcations.rf :rn1', pending in this writ petrtloll'
shall stanci c'lost'tl.No r:osrs
so/- P or,!+f;'$i H{8ISH"^A
,TRUECOPY,'/ SECTIONdFTICER
To roPucr I 2 3ffi33 3 i,1,ofrIouBHfiry#5HAEiA1'""'* 3 TwoCD CoPies
PSK GJP
")"-
t J
I i I I I I
HIGH COURT
DATED:26 tOgt2023
ORDER
WP.No.21S87 of 2014
1 HE S]q?
31 BII 217]
-:ooq)
t. - ,.,. l'j '.:1'.
:."\ '- 1=r
.DISMISSINGTHE WRIT PETITIONI WITHOUT COSTS.
\s
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pension given he has not completed 20 years of pensionable service after deducting suspension and extraordinary leave periods.
Whether the petitioner can claim the period of suspension/extraordinary leave should be included to meet the 20-year pensionable service requirement.
Whether the High Court ought to interfere with the respondent bank's decision to deny pension based on service computations.
P Veerrappa
State Bank of India, Local head office
Pulla Karthik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
