Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1060 (AP)

Chief General Manager v. V. Rama Rao

2014-08-25

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

body2014
Judgment L. Narasimha Reddy, J. This writ appeal is filed against the order, dated 01.04.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review W.P.M.P.No.40318 of 2013 in W.P.No.26924 of 1999. The facts, that gave raise to the filing of the writ appeal, are as under: The sole respondent was employed as Clerk in the appellants-Bank on 23.04.1970 and his services were confirmed in that post on 23.10.1972. In the year 1976, he became Officer of the Bank. He was paced under suspension on 13.02.1987 on certain allegations. Proceedings under the relevant provisions of I.P.C. were initiated against him by the C.B.I. The case is said to have ended in acquittal. A charge sheet, dated 18.02.1991 was served upon the respondent alleging certain irregularities. In the departmental enquiry, a finding was recorded to the effect that the charges are proved, through report, dated 13.12.1994. Based on that, a show cause notice dated 24.03.1995 was issued to the respondent. Not satisfied with the explanation, the disciplinary authority passed an order, dated 09.11.1996 imposing the punishment of removal from service. The departmental appeal was rejected on 26.12.1997. Challenging the order of removal, the respondent filed W.P.No.26924 of 1999. By the time the writ petition came up for hearing, the respondent attained the age of superannuation. He sought to place reliance upon the relevant Pension Rules, which enable even an employee, who is removed from service, to draw pension, subject to certain conditions. The writ petition was disposed of on 21.06.2013, directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent as to whether he is entitled for pension and other retirement benefits and to pass orders within six weeks. In compliance with the same, the appellants passed order, dated 08.10.2013 taking the view that the respondent is not qualified to be paid pension, since he does not fit into the relevant Clauses. To be precise, the appellants informed the respondent that either he should have completed 20 years of pensionable service and crossed 50 years of age, or 25 years of pensionable service irrespective of the age, or completed 10 years of pensionable service and attained the age of 60 years and since he does not fit into any of those Clauses, he is not entitled for pension. In view of the development that has taken place through communication, dated 08.10.2013, the respondent filed review petition. In view of the development that has taken place through communication, dated 08.10.2013, the respondent filed review petition. Learned single Judge heard the matter in detail and took the view that the respondent is qualified to be paid pension. Hence, this writ appeal. Ms. Uma Devi, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submits that the very filing of the review petition was impermissible and that the learned Single Judge has travelled beyond the scope of the writ petition in deciding the question of eligibility of the respondent to be paid pension. She also submits that wrong interpretation was placed upon the relevant Rule. Expanding further, learned counsel submits that the respondent was under suspension for a period of 4 years 1 month and 7 days and the same was liable to excluded. The second limb of the very ground is that the respondent has availed the Earned Leave for 50 days and that E.O.L. for 1 year 4 months and 21 days and if these periods are excluded, the respondent does not qualify for pension. Sri Kouturi Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the learned Single Judge did not feel it necessary to go into the merits of the matter at the initial stage, since the Rules permitted the respondent to draw pension and accordingly a direction was issued. He contends that since the appellants have placed a wrong interpretation on the Rules and denied pension, a review petition was filed and the matter was decided, after hearing both the parties. Learned counsel submits that by no stretch of imagination, the adjudication undertaken by the learned Single Judge can be said to be outside the scope of the writ petition. He further submits that the period, during which the employee was placed under suspension can not at all be excluded for the purpose of reckoning the pensionable service and the Rules relied upon by the respondent are only in the context of treating the period as on duty or otherwise for the limited purpose of deciding the wages to be paid for that period. He also submits that even if the period, during which the respondent was under suspension and he has availed the E.O.L. is to be excluded, he has to his credit 20 years 7 months and 2 days of pensionable service and accordingly, he is qualified to be paid pension under Rule 22 of the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules (for short ‘the Pension Rules’). At the outset, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellants for the entertaining of the review petition by the learned Single Judge needs to be dealt with. The circumstances, under which the respondent has been removed from service, have already been mentioned. Learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the respondent has already attained the age of superannuation by the time, writ petition has taken up for hearing. Since it was pleaded that the relevant Service Rules of the Bank enable an employee who is removed from service to avail the retirement benefits, the writ petition was disposed of through a brief order, giving a direction in that behalf. To be precise, the relevant portion reads: “In the above circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner as to whether he is entitled for pension or other retirement benefits and pass appropriate orders within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” In compliance with this direction, the appellants passed an order on 08.10.2013, informing the respondent that he is not entitled to be paid pension. It is in that context that the respondent filed review W.P.M.P. Since no finding was recorded as to the entitlement of the respondent, on the earlier occasion, a detailed discussion was undertaken with reference to the relevant Rules and decided cases. The review petition filed by the respondent cannot be said to be outside the scope of the writ petition. In a way, it can be said that the order passed in the writ petition was in the form of a direction pending disposal of the writ petition and the one passed in the Review W.P.M.P. is the final order in the writ petition. It is not alleged that the discussion undertaken by the learned Single Judge has travelled beyond the scope of the writ petition. Therefore, the objection raised by the appellants in this behalf is rejected. It is not alleged that the discussion undertaken by the learned Single Judge has travelled beyond the scope of the writ petition. Therefore, the objection raised by the appellants in this behalf is rejected. The order of removal passed against the respondent assumed finality. The Pension Rules enable a person who is imposed the punishment of removal also to draw the pension. There is no controversy about this. The whole dispute was as to whether the case of the respondent fits into the relevant Rule. It becomes necessary to take note of Rule 22 of the Pension Rules, which reads: 22 (i) A member shall be entitled to a pension under these rules on retiring from the Bank’s service- (a) After having completed twenty years’ pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after 1.11.93 after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty eight years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after 22.05.1998, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of sixty years; (b) After having completed twenty years’ pensionable service,. Irrespective of the age he shall have attained, if he shall satisfy the authority competent to sanction his retirement by approved medical certificate or otherwise that he is incapacitated for further active service; (c) After having completed twenty years pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained at his request in writing. (d) After twenty five years’ pensionable service. (ii) A member who has attained the age of fifty-five years (or who shall be proved to the satisfaction of the authority empowered to sanction his retirement to be permanently incapacitated by bodily or mental infirmity from further active service (such infirmity not being the result of irregular or intemperate habits) may, at the discretion of the trustee, be granted a proportionate pension. (iii) A member who has been permitted to retire under clauses 1(c) above shall be entitled to proportionate pension. It can be said that the Rule 22 and in particular Clause (i) (a) was drafted in a bit complicated way. It is only on a careful reading that the true meaning thereof can be discerned. (iii) A member who has been permitted to retire under clauses 1(c) above shall be entitled to proportionate pension. It can be said that the Rule 22 and in particular Clause (i) (a) was drafted in a bit complicated way. It is only on a careful reading that the true meaning thereof can be discerned. The best guide in this regard is to take note of the words “after having completed” before each of such instances. If so analysed, clause (a) takes in its fold three contingencies. They are: (i) After having completed twenty years’ pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after 1.11.93; (ii) After having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty eight years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after 22.05.1998; and (iii) After having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of sixty years. Clause (b) deals with the cases of retirement on two grounds and Clause (c) deals with the cases of voluntary retirement. Clause (d) deals with retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. The exact length of pensionable service rendered by the respondent needs to be ascertained. According to the appellants also, the respondent has put in service of 26 years and 1 month by the time he has been removed from service. It is stated that he has availed 506 days of EOL and according to the relevant Rules that does not count for pensionable service and the same is liable to deducted. The period, during which the respondent was under suspension being 1498 days i.e., 4 years 1 month and 7 days was also deducted. A serious doubt arises as to whether the period of suspension can be treated as not counting for pension. Even if the contention of the appellants is to be accepted, the pensionable service rendered by the respondent is 20 years 7 months and 2 days. The first facet of Clause (i)(a) of Rule 22 of the Pension Rules takes in its fold, the employees who have put in 20 years of pensionable service, provided he has attained age of 50 years or if he is in the service of the bank on or after 01.11.1993. The first facet of Clause (i)(a) of Rule 22 of the Pension Rules takes in its fold, the employees who have put in 20 years of pensionable service, provided he has attained age of 50 years or if he is in the service of the bank on or after 01.11.1993. Though the respondent did not attain the age of 50 years by the time he was removed from service, he remained in service after 01.11.1993, thereby, his case fits into that Clause. The basis, on which the appellants sought to deny pension to the respondent is mentioned in their communication, dated 08.10.2013. Their understanding of Rule 22 of the Pension Rules was as under: The eligibility criteria for payment of pension in case of employees removed from service on or after 1-11-1993 is as under: (a) The employee should have completed 20 years of pensionable service with 50 years of age or 25 years of pensionable service irrespective of age. (b) The employee should have completed 10 years of pensionable service and attains the age of 60 years. In the present case, Sri Rama Rao has not fulfilled any of the above criteria for payment of pension. Hence, he is not eligible for payment of pension as per SBI pension fund rules. This is contrary to the purport of Rule 22 of the Pension Rules. The requirement for an employee to put in 25 years of pensionable service is under Clause (d), which is not to any specific category. In a way, it can be said that the appellants mixed up the various Clauses of Rules 22 of the Pension Rules and held that the respondent is not eligible for pension. The view taken by the appellants for deducting the service covered by the period, during which the respondent was under suspension, is also not correct. The relevant Rules mandate that the disciplinary authority shall pass appropriate orders as to how the period of suspension can be treated only in the context of enabling the employee to draw the full pay. It has no bearing upon the question as to whether the period during which the employee was under suspension can be counted towards service. Rule 68 of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules deals with ‘suspension’. It has no bearing upon the question as to whether the period during which the employee was under suspension can be counted towards service. Rule 68 of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules deals with ‘suspension’. Clause (8) thereof is to the effect that the appointing authority shall pass an order as to the manner in which the period spent under suspension shall be treated. In other words, unless the period is treated as on duty, the employee shall not be entitled to full salary. Beyond that, it has no relation with the pensionable service. Even otherwise, the respondent has more than 20 years of pensionable service after deduction of the period of suspension also. We therefore dismiss the appeal. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.