Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 507 (RAJ)

Daulat Raisinghani v. State Bank Of India

2019-02-12

ALOK SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: (I) By issuance of suitable writ, direction or order in the nature thereof thereby the Honble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Bank to give all retrial benefit, gratuity, provident fund, pension alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum to the petitioner forthwith. (II) By issuance of suitable writ, direction or order in the nature thereof thereby the Honble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to treat the petitioner continued in service as the order passed by the respondent - Bank dated 24.11.1997 has not been complied with and treating the petitioner in service till the attaining the age of superannuation of the petitioner be given all the retiral benefits. (III) By issuance of suitable writ, direction or order in the nature thereof thereby the Honble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Bank to adjust the installment deposited by the petitioner in the Gold Loan Account. (IV) By issuance of suitable writ, direction or order in the nature thereof thereby the Honble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Bank to give the benefit of leave encashment to the petitioner and all retiral benefits. (V) By issuance of suitable writ, direction or order in the nature thereof thereby the Honble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to give halting allowance and travelling allowance for a period when the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer at Jaipur and Delhi, after he was retired. (VI) Any other order or direction which your lordships may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the petitioner and in the interest of justice. (VII) The writ petition may kindly be allowed throughout with costs. 2. The case of the petitioner (since deceased and now represented by his LRs) is that on 7th June, 1979, he joined the respondent-State Bank of Indias (hereafter the Bank) service as Technical Officer (Agriculture). Two charge sheets - one relating to Atru Branch and another relating to Jaipur Special Branch were issued to him and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. 2. The case of the petitioner (since deceased and now represented by his LRs) is that on 7th June, 1979, he joined the respondent-State Bank of Indias (hereafter the Bank) service as Technical Officer (Agriculture). Two charge sheets - one relating to Atru Branch and another relating to Jaipur Special Branch were issued to him and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. So far as disciplinary proceedings relating to Atru Branch, penalty of reduction to a lower grade by two stages in the time scale of pay with cumulative effect was visited upon the petitioner vide Banks order dated 3.7.1999. So far as disciplinary proceedings relating to Jaipur Special Branch was concerned, the petitioner was punished with the penalty of Censure, vide Banks order dated 28.9.1999. 3. While working as Assistant Manager, HMT, Ajmer Branch bank, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the Banks service vide order dated 24.11.1997 w.e.f. 30.11.1997 under Rule 19 (1) proviso 3 of SBI Officers Service Rule-1992 and a bankers cheque representing 3 months pay in lieu of notice period was purportedly sent therewith. The petitioner filed the appeal there against alleging that he did not receive the original bankers cheque representing three months pay in lieu of notice period, which vitiated the order of compulsory retirement but it was dismissed on 25.5.1998 being time barred. However, the rejection of the appeal is not the subject matter of the petition but recorded as a mere fact, aside of the illegality of his compulsory retirement. The petitioner also alleges that his appointing authority was the Chief General Manager and he was also his disciplinary authority, yet the petitioners order of compulsory retirement was passed by General Manager (D&PB), who being lower in rank, was not competent to so do. Thus, on account of non compliance of the provisions of law, the petitioner was to be treated in banks service till his retirement. In the alternative his salary, annual grade increment, interest on provident fund amount, leave encashment, travelling allowance, pension were not duly made over by the bank authorities but arbitrarily withheld by the bank. She also alleges that representation in the matter regarding non credit of installments in Gold Loan Account, despite deposit, remained unattended by the bank. 4. In the alternative his salary, annual grade increment, interest on provident fund amount, leave encashment, travelling allowance, pension were not duly made over by the bank authorities but arbitrarily withheld by the bank. She also alleges that representation in the matter regarding non credit of installments in Gold Loan Account, despite deposit, remained unattended by the bank. 4. Reply to the petition has been filed and it has been submitted that the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the banks services vide order dated 24.11.1997, the appeal there against dismissed as time barred, yet the writ petition was filed in the year 2005. Thus, it is hit by delay and laches and be dismissed. It has been submitted that the petitioner was compulsorily retired from Banks services vide order dated 24.11.1997 issued by the General Manager (D&PB) who was competent to so do under Rule (1) proviso 3 of the SBI Officers Service Rule-1992. The merit of the order is not even under challenge. The order dated 24.11.1997 alongwith Banks cheque dated 27.11.1997 for Rs. 24,150/- in lieu of three months pay was sent by registered post to the petitioner by the Banks HMT Branch, Ajmer, but was returned to the Branch with the noting undelivered. The petitioner was then duly informed by the respondent-Bank that the Bankers cheque returned undelivered was lying with the Banks HMT Branch, Ajmer and he could collect the same, but the petitioner did not nor complete the necessary formalities for post retiral benefits. It is also submitted that all representations filed by the petitioner have been duly replied by the respondent-Bank and his appeals there against have been rightly rejected. It has been submitted that having been compulsorily retired from Banks service, the petitioners promotion from JMGS-I to MMGS-II nor fixation consequent thereto warranted. So far as annual grade increment is concerned, it has been submitted that the petitioner did not cross the efficiency bar and therefore was not entitled to any increment. So far as the credit of installments in the Gold Loan Account is concerned, the respondent Bank informed the petitioner vide letter dated 3.10.2003 that the installments paid in the petitioners Gold Loan account were credited in the account. It has been submitted that the petitioner not having completed 20 years pensionable service, he was not entitled either to pension or for leave encashment. It has been submitted that the petitioner not having completed 20 years pensionable service, he was not entitled either to pension or for leave encashment. As per Banks Rules, only employees who render minimum 20 years pensionable service are entitled for pension and leave encashment. So far as grant of TA and Halting Allowance to the petitioner during inquiries against him, the petitioner being a resident of Jaipur was not entitled to TA and HA for attending the departmental proceedings at Jaipur itself. Further the petitioner never submitted any bill of TA and Halting Allowance. So far as the PF and gratuity amount is concerned, the petitioner was repeatedly asked by the respondent-Bank to complete the formalities, and no sooner he so did, they have been made over to him. 5. An additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner stating that he received provident fund amount of Rs. 2,15,795.35 upto 30.11.1997 and gratuity amount of Rs. 1,01,61/- upto 30.11.1997, but the interest thereon was not paid by the respondent-Bank. He further admitted that he received a duplicate cheque of Rs. 24,150/- towards three months salary in lieu of one months notice, but the interest thereon was not paid. 6. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been submitted that an amount of Rs. 20,213/- towards interest on gratuity amount has been paid and received by the petitioner. So far as interest on provident fund amount is concerned, the petitioner was not entitled for the same as he did not timely comply with the necessary formalities and delay caused in this regard was wholly attributable to him. It has further been submitted that as per Rule 33 of the SBI Employee PF Rules, interest on PF amount can only be paid to a member during his tenure of employment and since the petitioner had been compulsorily retired, subsequently no interest therefore was payable to him. So far as Bankers cheque in lieu of 3 months notice qua compulsory retirement is concerned, it has been submitted that the Bank had already sent the bankers cheque of Rs. 24,150/- dated 27.11.1997 to the petitioner but it was his obfuscation which led to delays in encashment - which the petitioner finally did belatedly to his own detriment. So far as Bankers cheque in lieu of 3 months notice qua compulsory retirement is concerned, it has been submitted that the Bank had already sent the bankers cheque of Rs. 24,150/- dated 27.11.1997 to the petitioner but it was his obfuscation which led to delays in encashment - which the petitioner finally did belatedly to his own detriment. So far as loan accounts were concerned, it was submitted that when the petitioner was paid the Provident Fund amount of Rs. 2,60,538/-, an amount of Rs. 44,742.65 was adjusted against the outstanding loan amount in vehicle loan interest account, consumer loan interest account and the gold loan account. Resultantly the balance amount of Rs. 2,15,795.35 was paid to the petitioner vide Draft No. 086380 dated 23.3.2007. 7. The petitioner Daulat Rai Singhani expired, as such he was represented by his LRs. 8. Heard. Considered. 9. The heart of the case of the deceased petitioner from the submissions in the petition is that when he was compulsorily retired by the Bank by resort to the 3rd proviso to Rule 19 (1) of the Rules of 1992, he was not paid 3 months salary in lieu thereof for reason of which the order of compulsory retirement was vitiated. I find no force in the submission. From the record of this petition, it is evident that a cheque in the name of deceased petitioner for Rs. 24,150/- being equivalent to three months salary was sent to his recorded address with the bank with a covering registered letter of even date but was returned undelivered. And subsequently the said cheque was admittedly received, albeit belatedly and even encashed by the deceased petitioner. And interest on purported delay attributable to the bank in its receipt has been claimed by the deceased petitioner - which claim has been denied by the Bank on its fair assertion that the delay on this account was not the banks which it did all in its power to timely make the payment to the petitioner. The petitioner was admittedly retired from the services of the bank on 24.11.1997 by resort to the 3rd proviso to Rule 19(1) of the Rules of 1992. His appeal there against was dismissed on 25.5.1998 for being time barred. That order is not even under challenge and attains finality. The petitioner was admittedly retired from the services of the bank on 24.11.1997 by resort to the 3rd proviso to Rule 19(1) of the Rules of 1992. His appeal there against was dismissed on 25.5.1998 for being time barred. That order is not even under challenge and attains finality. Besides the petition has been filed with inordinate delay only in 2005 (a delay of over 7 years). No doubt the plea of limitation does not attract to petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the doctrine of laches does. That doctrine applies fully to the instant case as no legally plausible explanation for delay in filing the petition has been proffered. The petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. Further it is evident from the facts asserted in the reply to the writ petition and the additional affidavit which have not been traversed that the amounts due to the petitioner on his compulsory retirement such as three months pay in lieu of 3 months notice, PF and gratuity after adjusting for amounts recoverable/have been paid by the bank and received by the petitioner. Other sums claimed such as pension or leave encashment were not permissible to the petitioner for reason of the fact that having been appointed in 1979 and compulsorily retired in 1997, he had not completed the necessary 20 years in service mandated under the Rules of 1992 to be entitled. The petitioners claims in the petition such as on account of halting allowance during the period of enquiry at Jaipur is devoid of merit for reason of the uncontested averment of the respondent bank that the departmental enquiry was at Jaipur, where the petitioner was then stationed. Besides, the claim is also devoid material particulars as to alleged amounts due on that count. The relief in this petition as to adjustment of installments purportedly deposited by the petitioner in his Gold Loan account is an apparent accounting dispute qua the Gold Loan availed by the petitioner which this Court cannot do in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further the respondent bank claims having given benefit of all installments paid and adjusted the same in the amount due under the Gold Loan scheme. Further the respondent bank claims having given benefit of all installments paid and adjusted the same in the amount due under the Gold Loan scheme. If the petitioner was aggrieved of an accounting dispute, it was for him to lay a civil suit where his claim could be adjudicated in a regular trial. 10. In this view of the matter, I find no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.