Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 130 (GUJ)

Jagsingh Rawatsingh Rajput v. Bank of Baroda

2014-01-30

K.J.THAKER

body2014
Judgment K.J. Thaker, J.—Mr. Mukund M. Desai learned advocate for the petitioner is absent. Heard Mr. Darshan M. Parikh learned advocate for the Respondent No. 1. 2. This Court, in Misc. Civil Application No. 1345 of 2010 in Special Civil Application 15364 of 2006, has passed the following order, which reads as under: “This application for clarification of my judgment and order dated 8th September, 2006 passed in Special Civil Application No. 15364/2006 is made by the writ petitioner. The judgment and order dated 8th September, 2006 are clear and unambiguous. No clarification is warranted. Application is misconceived. Hence, rejected.” 3. In Special Civil Application No. 15364/2006, which was preferred earlier by the present petitioner, this Court has passed the following order, which reads as under “RULE returnable today. Mr. Parikh waives service of rule. With the consent of the learned advocates, the matter is heard and disposed of today. The petitioner is a retired employee of the respondent – Bank of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as, “the Bank”). At the relevant time, the petitioner was serving as a Clerk in Kali Branch, Ahmedabad of the Bank. For the acts of alleged misconduct a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. By order dated 29th October, 2003 he wa s ordered to be compulsorily retire d from service. The said order of compulsory retirement has become final. It is now the claim of the petitioner that in view of his retirement from service he is entitled to pension. Whereas the Bank has disputed his claim. According to the Bank, the petitioner having been retired from service as a penal measure, he is not entitled to pension. Mr. Mishra has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Kanaiyalal Kantilal Brahmbhatt vs. Bank of Baroda, (Special Civil Application No. 7671 of 2005 decided on 1st September, 2006; Coram: Akil Kureshi, J.). He has submitted that this Court has interpreted the relevant regulations of the Bank and has held that the delinquent servants who are compulsorily retired also are entitled to pension. Mr. Parikh has submitted that the employees of the Bank are entitled to pension under the Bank of Baroda (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995. Regulation 33 of the said Regulations confers discretion upon the Bank whether or not to allow pension in case of compulsory retirement. Mr. Parikh has submitted that the employees of the Bank are entitled to pension under the Bank of Baroda (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995. Regulation 33 of the said Regulations confers discretion upon the Bank whether or not to allow pension in case of compulsory retirement. He has submitted that this Court has, in the above matter of Kanaiyalal Kantilal Brahmbhatt, committed error in interpreting the aforesaid Regulation 33. The matter, therefore, requires to be referred to the Larger Bench. I am unable to agree with Mr. Parikh. Considering Regulation 33 read with Regulation 22 of the said Regulations, this Court has held that the only discretion left under Regulation 33 is whether to grant 100 per cent pension or to reduce it to not less than 2/3rd of the full pension admissible to the delinquent servant. I am in agreement with the learned Judge. No case for reference to the Larger Bench has been made out. In above view of the matter, the petition is allowed. It is declared that the petitioner is, inspite of his compulsory retirement from service, entitled to receive pension. It is directed that the Bank shall, within ten weeks from today, consider the case of the petitioner for grant of full pension or to exercise discretionary power under the aforesaid Regulation 33. The arrears of pension shall be paid on or before 30th November, 2006. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The parties shall bear their own cost.” 4. The present petition is a subsequent petition, wherein, the following prayers are made: (A) Be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 8.2.2005 passed by the Deputy General Manager (North Gujarat Zone) & Appellate Authority and the order dated 29.10.2004 passed by the Assistant General Manager (Ahmedabad City Region) and Disciplinary Authority. (B) Pending admission and final disposal of the petitioner to quash and set aside the order dated 8.2.2005 passed by the Deputy General Manager (North Gujarat Zone) & Appellate Authority and the order dated 29.10.2004 passed by Assistant General Manager (Ahmedabad City Region) and Disciplinary Authority.” 5. It is conveyed by Mr. Parikh that the petitioner is receiving the pension and he has been compulsorily retired from service. It goes without saying that there is no mala fide alleged in the petition. It is conveyed by Mr. Parikh that the petitioner is receiving the pension and he has been compulsorily retired from service. It goes without saying that there is no mala fide alleged in the petition. The order passed by the concerned authority dated 29.10.2004 by the Assistant General Manager (Ahmedabad City Region) and the order dated 8.2.2005 passed by the Deputy General Manager (North Gujarat Zone) & Appellate Authority, cannot be found fault with in the second round of litigation on the same facts and circumstances. The petitioner has never challenged his compulsorily retirement but has asked for pension which was granted and petition was allowed. However, in the second round of litigation, he has now challenged his compulsory retirement after getting the benefit of pension. 6. On going through the merits and catena of decisions, it is held that the compulsory retirement, normally, in absence of mala fide cannot and should be not interfered with. The orders speaks for this and the petitioner cannot be said to have been wrongly compulsorily retired from service. The affidavit-in-reply speaks volumes about the same according to this Court, he has been very liberally dealt with. One more aspect will have to be looked into that at the time of his compulsorily retirement and filing of this petition, he has already filed the petition way back in the year 2006, and again, this petition is filed in the year 2008 which is belated and after thought. Hence, no case is made for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the result, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.