Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 28 (CAL)

SANKARPADA CHAKRABORTY v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

2007-01-18

ARUNABHA BASU, PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY

body2007
( 1 ) THIS Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated August 7, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 1305 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was in the employment of the State Bank of India and he applied for voluntary retirement from the service of the State bank of India. The said application for voluntary retirement of the petitioner was accepted by the Competent Authority of the Bank. ( 3 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the Competent Authority of the State Bank of India granted retiral benefit to the petitioner after the date of retirement but refused to sanction pension. ( 4 ) THE claim of the petitioner for pension from the Bank was not considered at the relevant time on the ground that the said petitioner accepted an employment within two years from the date of his retirement without obtaining prior permission and/or sanction of the executive Committee of the Central Board. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel representing the Respondent-State Bank of india Authorities referred to Rule 19 of the State Bank of India employees' Pension Fund Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the said rules") and submits that if an officer of the Bank entitled to pension accepts an employment without the sanction required under Rule 19 of the said Rules, then the Trustees are competent to withdraw the pension payable to the concerned employee either in whole or in part at their discretion. ( 6 ) RULE 19 of the said Rules is quoted hereunder: "if an officer of the Bank who is entitled to pension under these rules wishes to accept employment in any other bank at any time or any other commercial employment within two years from the date of retirement, he should obtain the previous sanction of the executive Committee of the Central Board. Should he undertake such employment without the sanction required under this rule, it shall be competent for the trustees to withdraw the pension payable to him either in whole or in part at their discretion. Provided that an officer permitted by the Executive Committee to take up a particular form of commercial employment during his leave preparatory to retirement shall not be required to obtain subsequent permission for his continuance in such employment after retirement. Provided that an officer permitted by the Executive Committee to take up a particular form of commercial employment during his leave preparatory to retirement shall not be required to obtain subsequent permission for his continuance in such employment after retirement. " ( 7 ) THE claim of the petitioner for pension from the Bank was not considered at the relevant time by the Chief General Manager as has been specifically mentioned in the letter of the said Chief General manager on May 30, 2001. ( 8 ) THE text of the aforesaid letter is quoted hereunder: "dear Sir, payment of Pension on voluntary retirement from the Bank with reference to your letter dated the 20th May, 2001, we had already responded to the notice of Shri Shambhu Raha, Advocate, siliguri Bar Association issued on behalf of you, under cover of our letter No. (PER)/1477 dated the 30th June, 1999 (copy enclosed ). 2. Your claim for pension from the Bank at this stage does not merit consideration. Yours faithfully, for Chief General Manager" ( 9 ) ON examination of the text of the aforesaid letter of the Chief general Manager, it appears that the Trustees of the State Bank of india Employees' Pension Fund (hereinafter referred as "the said Fund") did not pass any order in terms of Rule 19 of the said Rules withdrawing the pension payable to the petitioner either in whole or in part. ( 10 ) IN terms of Rule 19 of the said Rules, the Trustees of the said fund have the discretion to withdraw the pension payable to the concerned employee either in whole or in part. Obviously, the aforesaid discretion is to be exercised by the Trustees in an appropriate and reasonable manner. ( 11 ) BY the written communication dated May 30, 2001, the Chief general Manager of the State Bank of India only informed the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner for pension from the Bank does not merit consideration at that stage. Therefore, it cannot be said that any final decision has been taken by the Trustees regarding withdrawal of the pension of the petitioner either in whole or in part in terms of Rule 19 of the said Rules. The Trustees are the Competent Authority to take appropriate decision regarding withdrawal of the pension payable to the concerned employee in terms of Rule 19 of the said Rules. The Trustees are the Competent Authority to take appropriate decision regarding withdrawal of the pension payable to the concerned employee in terms of Rule 19 of the said Rules. ( 12 ) IN the present case, no such decision has been taken by the trustees of the said Fund. The Chief General Manager of the Bank only informed the petitioner that the claim for pension of the said petitioner did not merit consideration at that stage and, therefore, at a subsequent stage such claim for pension should be taken into consideration by the competent Authority. ( 13 ) MR. Arunabha Ghosh, learned counsel representing the appellant/petitioner, submits that now the petitioner is neither in employment of any other Bank nor even accepted any job in any commercial organisation and, therefore, is suffering serious financial hardship due to non-payment of the pension. ( 14 ) IT has not been alleged that the acceptance of any employment by the petitioner immediately after retirement from the service of the state Bank of India caused any prejudice to the said Respondent-Bank. ( 15 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, the Trustees of the said Fund should exercise their proper discretion while deciding the claim of the petitioner for pension from the Respondent-State Bank of India. ( 16 ) THE learned single Judge, unfortunately, did not take note of the fact that the Trustees of the said Fund did not pass any order at any point of time withdrawing the pension payable to the said petitioner in terms of Rule 19 of the said Rules and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled to claim pension from the Respondent bank as has erroneously been held by the learned single Judge. ( 17 ) THE Respondent-Bank cannot refuse to sanction pension to the petitioner when the Trustees of the said Fund did not issue any order withdrawing the pension payable to the said petitioner in terms of Rule 19 of the said Rules till date. ( 18 ) FURTHERMORE, the said Trustees also cannot withdraw the pension payable to the petitioner in terms of Rule 19 of the said Rules with retrospective effect and now any decision under said Rule 19 in respect of the petitioner has to be taken upon considering the present state of affairs of the said petitioner. ( 18 ) FURTHERMORE, the said Trustees also cannot withdraw the pension payable to the petitioner in terms of Rule 19 of the said Rules with retrospective effect and now any decision under said Rule 19 in respect of the petitioner has to be taken upon considering the present state of affairs of the said petitioner. ( 19 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, the Judgment and Order passed by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and the same is, accordingly, set aside. ( 20 ) THE Competent Authority of the Respondent-State Bank of India is directed to take appropriate decision regarding sanction of pension in accordance with law to the petitioner at an early date, but positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. This Appeal thus stands allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal stands allowed.