Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 157 (GAU)

Promothesh Dutta Choudhury v. State Bank of India

2010-03-02

C.R.SARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. Heard Mrs. B. Goyal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as Mr. G. Jalan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent authorities. 2. By this writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction to the Respondent authorities to furnish him the statement of accounts relating to his service and also to release the pensionary benefits to him. The Petitioner joined the State Bank of India on 6th August, 1964. He was placed under suspension on 6.8.84 and removed from service on 3.1.1985 following the departmental proceeding. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing a Civil Rule No. 947/1985. This Court, by order dated 30.5.85 while allowing the writ petition substituted the order of removal with the punishment of compulsory retirement. As the Respondent authorities failed to release the pensionary benefits to the Petitioner, he instituted a contempt proceeding and the same was closed on the basis of the submissions made by the Respondents that the Petitioner having not completed the qualifying period of service was not entitled to pensionary benefits. Subsequently the Petitioner filed another writ petition being Civil Rule No. 559/91 seeking a declaration and direction regarding entitlement of his pensionary benefits. By order, dated 27.7.96, passed in the above mentioned writ petition, this Court held that the Petitioner was entitled to get the pension as per rule. The said order was challenge by filing a Writ Appeal No. 274/98 and the Division Bench, by judgment and order dated 10.01.2001, passed in the above mentioned Writ Appeal, while dismissing the appeal upheld the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 559/91. The said order of the Division Bench was challenged by filing a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order, dated 12.5.2001, passed in S.L. Appeal (C)No. 8217/2001 dismissed the same. Thereafter, a review application being Review Petition (C) No. 779/2001, was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 7th August, 2001. Thus, the order of the learned Single Judge, passed in Writ Petition No. 559/91, regarding entitlement of the pensionary benefits by the Petitioner attained its finality. Thereafter, a review application being Review Petition (C) No. 779/2001, was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 7th August, 2001. Thus, the order of the learned Single Judge, passed in Writ Petition No. 559/91, regarding entitlement of the pensionary benefits by the Petitioner attained its finality. By their letter dated 24.12.2001 the Respondent authorities in pursuance to the order dated 10.1.2001 passed in Writ Appeal No.274/98, inter alia passed the following order. In this connection, we wish to add that until the eligible amount of pension is sanctioned by the Trustees, on submission of your application, we are advising our Silchar Branch to pay ad-hoc pension of Rs. 925/- p.m. from December, 2001 onwards. 3. According to the Petitioner, in spite of repeated approach the matter regarding payment of pension has not been finalized and that the pension has been released with effect from the date of the compulsory retirement dated 3.1.85. Hence, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: To admit this application. Call for the records, and issue a Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus should' not be issued directing the Respondents, to supply the statement of accounts materials which formed the basis of calculation to arrive at the figure which they claim to be the dues to the Petitioner and be further pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the Petitioner his rightful dues calculating the pension payable to the Petitioner taking into account the period of probation as well as the period of suspension along with interest on the total sum that ought to be paid to the Petitioner from the date of judgment 30.05.1985 passed by this Court in Civil Rule No. 947/1985 till the date of payment and/or pass such further or other order/orders as to this Court may deem fit and proper. 4. The Respondent authorities, in spite of service of notice, failed to convert the contentions made by the Petitioner by filing affidavit-in-opposition. 5. Mrs. 4. The Respondent authorities, in spite of service of notice, failed to convert the contentions made by the Petitioner by filing affidavit-in-opposition. 5. Mrs. B. Goyal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, taking this Court through the record, has submitted that the order of removable dated 3.1.85 being converted to an order of compulsory retirement the Petitioner should have been deemed to have retired on 3.1.85 and as such he was entitled to get the pensionary benefits' including the monthly pension w.e.f. 3.1.85 and not from December, 2001. 6. It is an admitted position that, in view of the order passed by this Court, the order of removable dated 3.1.85 was modified as compulsory retirement, and as such, for all necessary purpose, the Petitioner should have been treated to have been compulsory retired w.e.f. 3.1.85. Therefore, he was entitled to get pensionary benefits etc from the said date, unless otherwise prevented. It is also contended on behalf of the Petitioner that in spite of repeated approach, the Respondent authorities failed to furnish the statement of accounts on the basis of which the retirement benefits were calculated. For the ends of justice, and for the purpose of maintaining transparency in the public administration the statement of accounts, which was the basis for calculating the pension should have been furnished to the Petitioner. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the entire matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the Respondent authorities shall furnish the relevant statement of accounts to the Petitioner and release his pensionary benefits including the monthly pension after calculating the same keeping in mind the period of services rendered by the Petitioner and the date of retirement as per rules. As the Petitioner has been seeking justice since 1985. it is directed that the entire exercise shall be completed by the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India (Respondent No. 2) within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and order, failing which the Respondent authorities shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum till release of the amount due. A copy of this judgment and order along with a copy of the writ petition and its annexures shall be furnished, by the Petitioner, to the Respondent No. 2 within 2 (two) weeks from today. 8. A copy of this judgment and order along with a copy of the writ petition and its annexures shall be furnished, by the Petitioner, to the Respondent No. 2 within 2 (two) weeks from today. 8. A copy of this judgment and order shall also be furnished to Mr. G. Jalan, learned Counsel for the Respondents for doing the needful. 9. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Writ petition disposed of.