Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1160 (DEL)

Samundra Sain v. Punjab National Bank & Others

2023-02-23

MINI PUSHKARNA

body2023
JUDGMENT [Physical Hearing/ Hybrid Hearing] Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner raising his grievances primarily on three issues viz. imposition of penal interest by the bank towards re-payment of education loan of his daughter, non-release of third stagnation benefit to the petitioner by the respondent bank from where the petitioner took voluntary retirement and payment of deficient amount of pension to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has made prayer for correction and rectification of irregularities in the education loan of his daughter as per the bank guidelines. The petitioner has further prayed for direction to the respondents to release third stagnation increment in favour of the petitioner and correct his pension accordingly after adding the third stagnation increment. The petitioner has further prayed that his pension which has been paid for a lesser period to the extent of 42 days, be also paid to him. 2. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent bank. He had joined the respondent bank as a management trainee in the year 1980. While the petitioner was working as Senior Internal Auditor in the respondent bank, his daughter took education loan to the tune of Rs.6 lakhs from the bank, which was sanctioned on 27.09.2003. The petitioner stood as a guarantor for the education loan taken by his daughter. 3. The said education loan was repayable from one year after the completion of the course or six months after the employment of the person who had taken the loan, whichever was earlier. Since as per the bank, repayment of the loan was not being done in accordance with the loan agreement, the said loan was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). 4. As per the petitioner, he felt harassed owing to the controversy pertaining to repayment of education loan of his daughter. Thus, petitioner made his first application for voluntary retirement on 10.07.2010 with notice period of 3 months. The said request of the petitioner was allowed by the respondent Bank on 16.08.2010. However, petitioner withdrew his first application for voluntary retirement on 06.09.2010, before expiry of the 3 month notice period. 5. The petitioner, thereafter, sought Voluntary Retirement from the service of the respondent bank by way of his second application dated 14.11.2010. The said request of the petitioner was allowed by the respondent Bank on 16.08.2010. However, petitioner withdrew his first application for voluntary retirement on 06.09.2010, before expiry of the 3 month notice period. 5. The petitioner, thereafter, sought Voluntary Retirement from the service of the respondent bank by way of his second application dated 14.11.2010. The bank did not accede to the request of the petitioner for Voluntary Retirement for the reason that the education loan taken by his daughter had still not been repaid fully and that the petitioner had stood as a guarantor for his daughter. 6. Since the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was not acceded by the bank, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 1166/2011. The petitioner prayed before this Court that his application for Voluntary Retirement be considered. The respondent herein submitted in the said petition that in view of the fact that loan in the name of daughter of petitioner was still outstanding and was classified as NPA, therefore, the respondent bank was unable to accede to his request. In response, petitioner had submitted that he had no objection if the loan amount payable was adjusted from his retirement dues. Thus, by its order dated 09.03.2011, this Court directed the respondent bank to consider the request of the petitioner for Voluntary Retirement and further that the loan amount which was outstanding in the education loan of his daughter, shall be adjusted from the retiral dues of the petitioner. 7. Thereafter, the respondent bank considered the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement. The petitioner was given voluntary retirement by the bank by order dated 23.03.2011. The respondent bank adjusted the outstanding amount as per its calculations from the retiral dues of the petitioner 8. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 28.02.2012 to the bank on the aspect of calculation of the payable amount towards repayment of education loan, non-payment of 3rd stagnation benefit to the petitioner and error in the pension released to him. Since, no decision was taken on the representation of the petitioner, he approached this Court again by way of W.P.(C) 3231/2012. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 31.05.2012 with direction to the respondent bank to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 28.02.2012 by a speaking order. 9. Since, no decision was taken on the representation of the petitioner, he approached this Court again by way of W.P.(C) 3231/2012. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 31.05.2012 with direction to the respondent bank to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 28.02.2012 by a speaking order. 9. Pursuant thereto, bank issued a letter dated 02.07.2012 to the petitioner informing that his representation dated 28.02.2012 had been considered and disposed of by the bank vide its order dated 18.05.2012. 10. By way of the aforesaid letter dated 18.05.2012, the respondent bank rejected the representation of the petitioner and did not grant any relief to the petitioner qua his grievances. Thus, the present writ petition was filed. 11. It is contended by the petitioner appearing in person that the bank committed irregularity in calculating the loan amount payable for the education loan taken by his daughter. The respondent has wrongly charged penal interest even before the date of start of repayment. The said loan was wrongly declared as NPA, as the petitioner was regular in repayment of the loan. The respondents have not acted in good faith and have caused financial loss to the petitioner by deliberately violating the bank regulations/ Government guidelines. 12. It is submitted that the loan was payable one year after completion of the course or six months after employment, whichever was earlier. Since the course completed on 31.12.2008, the period of repayment commenced only after one year from the completion of the said course. Therefore, no penal interest could be imposed by the bank. The account was wrongly declared as NPA on 28.12.2010, as the petitioner had already deposited Rs. 2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Ten Thousand) by the said date. Further, the instalment was to begin only after 01.01.2010. 13. It is further submitted by the petitioner in person that the third stagnation increment was wrongly not granted to the petitioner, which became due on 01.01.2011. Similarly, the petitioner contended that the pension benefit has to be granted to him in accordance with his entitlement after adding the third stagnation increment. The pension benefit as released to the petitioner was for a lesser period of 42 days, thus, the petitioner was also entitled for release of pension for the said period. 14. Similarly, the petitioner contended that the pension benefit has to be granted to him in accordance with his entitlement after adding the third stagnation increment. The pension benefit as released to the petitioner was for a lesser period of 42 days, thus, the petitioner was also entitled for release of pension for the said period. 14. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the daughter of the petitioner completed her course in December, 2007 and she was on paid internship from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008, as per the Certificate of Internship on record. Since, the daughter of the petitioner had joined the employment in January, 2008 under paid internship, the bank was entitled to seek repayment of loan amount with effect from July, 2008 i.e. 6 months after her employment. However, the same was done only with effect from October, 2008. Hence, the said loan was rightly categorised as NPA and penal interest was charged. 15. As regards the claims of the petitioner for payment of third stagnation increment, it is submitted that the petitioner was on unauthorised absence on various dates continuously since 22.10.2010 till his relieving under Voluntary Retirement on 25.03.2011. Since the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent, he was not entitled to the third stagnation increment. It is submitted that the petitioner had applied for Voluntary Retirement, which was not considered in view of the fact that education loan account of his daughter was still outstanding and was NPA. Voluntary retirement has to be as per Regulations and cannot be automatic on completion of 90 days. The petitioner was relieved w.e.f. 25.03.2011. Therefore, when the petitioner proceeded on leave after his application for Voluntary Retirement, the said period would be unauthorised leave. Further, since the petitioner was relieved only w.e.f. 25.03.2011, the petitioner had rightly been granted pension from 26.03.2011. 16. I have heard the petitioner in person as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 17. In the present case, the petitioner's daughter had taken education loan. As per the scheme, the loan was payable after one year from the completion of the education or after six months of employment, whichever was earlier. The daughter of the petitioner studied for the course of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS). 17. In the present case, the petitioner's daughter had taken education loan. As per the scheme, the loan was payable after one year from the completion of the education or after six months of employment, whichever was earlier. The daughter of the petitioner studied for the course of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS). The stand of the respondent that the daughter of the petitioner did paid internship from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008 and thus, the loan amount became payable after six months from 01.01.2008 i.e. with effect from 01.07.2008, is totally unacceptable. 18. Any medical study entails internship, without which the study cannot be said to be completed. Therefore, the education of the daughter of the petitioner for her course of BDS cannot be said to have been completed on 31.12.2007 on the basis that she started her internship with effect from 01.01.2008, for which internship, she was also being paid. Payment during the period of internship is certainly not salary or income, but only a stipend, which is in the nature of an allowance for the period of internship. Stipend is in the nature of a compensation for personal expenses during training and is not akin to salary or income. 19. Pertinently, the Internship Completion Certificate as issued by the Dental College and Hospital from where the petitioner's daughter studied the BDS course, clearly records that one year internship was compulsory. Meaning thereby, the BDS course as being pursued by petitioner's daughter could not be said to have been completed till she completed the compulsory one year internship period. Thus, the period of internship cannot certainly be treated as period of employment, as has been done by the bank. The stand of the bank that the loan became payable with effect from 01.07.2008, is totally wrong, as the petitioner's daughter was still doing her internship during that time, which continued till 31.12.2008. 20. Considering the fact that the educational course of the daughter of the petitioner completed only on 31.12.2008, upon completion of her one year internship with effect from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008, the period of repayment of loan, as per the scheme, commenced only after one year of completion of the course i.e. with effect from 01.01.2010. 21. 20. Considering the fact that the educational course of the daughter of the petitioner completed only on 31.12.2008, upon completion of her one year internship with effect from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008, the period of repayment of loan, as per the scheme, commenced only after one year of completion of the course i.e. with effect from 01.01.2010. 21. Along with the present writ petition, the petitioner has attached copy of the statement of account, which he received from the respondent bank pursuant to application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. As per the statement of account as maintained by the respondent bank, the first payment for re-payment of loan was made on 20.06.2009. Thereafter, payments were made on 26.04.2010, 30.06.2010, 30.09.2010 and 28.12.2010. There is no dispute that the repayment of education loan of the petitioner's daughter was recovered completely by the bank. 22. In view of the aforesaid, declaration of the education loan of the petitioner's daughter as NPA is totally unjustified. Thus, imposing penal interest @2% by the bank is legally untenable. The bank is directed to refund the excess amount to the petitioner that has been deducted from the petitioner on account of imposing penal interest @2% towards the education loan taken by his daughter. 23. The next issue raised by the petitioner is non-grant of third stagnation increment to him. The same has not been released to the petitioner by the bank on the basis that the petitioner was on unauthorised leave since 22.10.2010, till his relieving under Voluntary Retirement on 25.03.2011. The stand of the respondent bank in this regard is totally unjustified. 24. The petitioner had applied for Voluntary Retirement on 14.11.2010 with three months notice period. The said request of the petitioner was initially not acceded to by the respondent bank. However, pursuant to the directions of this Court, as recorded in order dated 09.03.2011 in W.P.(C)1166/2011, the respondent accepted the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement vide letter dated 23.03.2011. 25. Since the petitioner had already applied for Voluntary Retirement vide his application dated 14.11.2010, the petitioner proceeded on leave, which as per the respondent, the petitioner had taken with effect from 22.10.2010 till his voluntary retirement was accepted vide letter dated 23.03.2011. The respondent bank has considered the aforesaid period of leave during the pendency of the application of the petitioner for Voluntary Retirement, as unauthorised leave. The respondent bank has considered the aforesaid period of leave during the pendency of the application of the petitioner for Voluntary Retirement, as unauthorised leave. Thus, on this ground the benefit of third stagnation increment has been denied to the petitioner. 26. As per PNB Employee Pension Regulation, 1995 (Pension Regulation), an employee who has completed 20 years of qualifying service, may retire from service voluntarily by giving notice of not less than three months in writing. The said Regulation further provides that where the appointment authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. Relevant provision of Regulation 29 of Pension Regulation is reproduced as below: "29. Pension on Voluntary Retirement 1) On or after the 1st day of November, 1993, at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority retire from service; ...... 2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub- regulation (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority: Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. ......" 27. In the present case, the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted by the respondent bank only by its letter dated 23.03.2011 in pursuance of the directions as recorded in order dated 09.03.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1166/2011. As per the Pension Regulation, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the notice period, where request for Voluntary Retirement has not been rejected before the expiry of the period. 28. However, in the present case the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was initially rejected by the respondent Bank. It is noteworthy that while the first application for voluntary retirement of the petitioner dated 10.07.2010 was accepted by the bank on 16.08.2010, the second application of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement dated 14.11.2010 was rejected by the respondent on 22.01.2011 on the ground of loan account of her daughter being declared as NPA. It is noteworthy that while the first application for voluntary retirement of the petitioner dated 10.07.2010 was accepted by the bank on 16.08.2010, the second application of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement dated 14.11.2010 was rejected by the respondent on 22.01.2011 on the ground of loan account of her daughter being declared as NPA. It was only subsequently upon directions of this Court that the second application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted by the respondent vide letter dated 23.03.2011. In these circumstances, considering the said period between the application praying for voluntary retirement and acceptance of the voluntary retirement as unauthorised absence, is totally unjustified. 29. When the respondent had accepted the first application for voluntary retirement, rejection of the second application for voluntary retirement on the ground that the account of the education loan of petitioner's daughter was NPA, was totally uncalled for and cannot be justified. The bank always had the option to adjust the due amount from the retiral dues of the petitioner, which it ultimately did after the order dated 09.03.2011 passed by this Court. Therefore, treating the period in the interregnum as unauthorised, is not legally tenable. 30. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the present case where the first application for voluntary retirement was accepted and the second application for voluntary retirement was firstly rejected and thereafter accepted only after the petitioner approached this Court, it is directed that the said period during the pendency of the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement till its acceptance vide letter dated 23.03.2011, will not be treated as unauthorised. 31. Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is held that the voluntary retirement of the petitioner became effective after expiry of three months from the date of the notice of Voluntary Retirement. 32. In view of the aforesaid, it is held that the petitioner would be entitled to third stagnation increment. 33. Consequently, it is held that the petitioner would be entitled to pension from the date when his Voluntary Retirement came into effect in terms of Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulation after expiry of three months' notice period. 32. In view of the aforesaid, it is held that the petitioner would be entitled to third stagnation increment. 33. Consequently, it is held that the petitioner would be entitled to pension from the date when his Voluntary Retirement came into effect in terms of Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulation after expiry of three months' notice period. Action of the respondents in granting pension to the petitioner by holding his date of voluntary retirement as 23.03.2011, and not paying him any salary pension for the period prior to acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement, after the expiry of three months' notice period, treating the same as unauthorised absence, is not tenable. 34. In view of the detailed discussion hereinabove, the impugned letter dated 18.05.2012 is hereby quashed. Following directions are given to the bank: i. To refund excess amount to the petitioner that was deducted towards recovery of loan amount. ii. To grant third stagnation increment to the petitioner. iii. To release rectified pensionary benefits to the petitioner from the date of expiry of three months' notice period. 35. The aforesaid benefits be released to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. 36. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.