Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 41 (KAR)

Shivappa Yellappa Hiremetri v. Syndicate Bank

2001-01-10

MOHAMED ANWAR

body2001
ORDER Mohamed Anwar, J.—Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner, who is a retired employee of the Respondent-Syndicate Bank, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondents to extend pensionary benefits to him available under the Pension Scheme adopted for the Nationalised Banks with effect from 29.9.1995. 3. It is not in dispute that Respondent-Bank is a nationalised Bank. The Petitioner was appointed in Respondent-Bank on 20.11.1973 as an Attender. During 1993, he was working as such in Saundatti Branch of the Respondent-Bank. While working there, he remained unauthorisedly absent from 1993 and when he failed to turn up and report for his duty despite repeated notices issued by the Respondent-Bank, he was finally issued with show-cause notice per Annexure-B dated 25.8.1993 calling upon him to report for duty within 30 days with satisfactory explanation for his unauthorised absence failing which he would be deemed to have voluntarily retired from Bank's service on expiry of the said period of 30 days. He did not respond to Annexure-B notice. Consequently, he was treated by Respondent-Bank as having voluntarily retired on expiry of the said period of 30 days i.e., with effect from 24.9.1993. 4. When the said Pension Scheme for the employees of the nationalised Banks was adopted and implemented with effect from 29.9.1995, such of those employees who had retired before its adoption were given an opportunity to exercise their option in writing to avail the benefit thereunder on or before 30.9.1994 under Respondent's Circular bearing No. 138/94/BC, dated 7.6.1994. The last date for availing this option was further extended upto 25.1.1996. In the meantime, in July 1995, admittedly, a letter i.e., application was given by Petitioner to Respondent-Bank requesting to permit him to opt for the benefit under the said Pension Scheme. But, the Bank issued endorsement dated 17.7.1995 vide Annexure-E rejecting his request on the ground that the said application was not given by him within the first cut off date i.e., 30.9.1994. 5. But, the Bank issued endorsement dated 17.7.1995 vide Annexure-E rejecting his request on the ground that the said application was not given by him within the first cut off date i.e., 30.9.1994. 5. Evidently, Respondent was not legally justified in turning down the request of Petitioner to permit him to exercise option to avail the benefit under the said scheme on the ground that his application given to the Bank in July 1995 was after expiry of the first cut off date i.e., 30.9.1994, when, admittedly, the first opportunity that was given to the already retired employees to exercise their option for the said purpose on or before 30.9.1994 had been kept alive by further extending the last date for that purpose till 25.1.1996. In that view of the matter, the said application of Petitioner given in July 1995 referred to in Respondent's letter at Annexure-E dated 17.7.1995 was a valid one which required due consideration by Respondent-Bank in accordance with the terms of the said scheme. 6. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The Respondent's order at Annexure-E dated 17.7.1995 is set aside with a direction to the Respondent-Bank to treat the Petitioner's said letter/application referred to in Annexure-E as a valid one and to consider the request of Petitioner made therein and proceed to pass appropriate order in terms of the Pension Scheme that has been adopted for the employees of the Bank and implemented with effect from 29.9.1995.