IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP.No. 26847 of 2002(U) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ R. SREEKUMARAN NAIR, (AGED 51 YEARS), S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, USHUS, T.C.17/313/1, CHERIYA ROAD, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012.(RTD BRANCH MANAGER,SBT, KADAKKAVOOR) BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY IN THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PRINCIPAL OFFICE, STADIUM HOUSE, VEER NARIMAN ROAD, BOMBAY - 400 001. 3. STATE BANK OF TRAAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. MANAGER (PENSION, PF AND GRATUITY) STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. ASST. GENERAL MANAGER, (FINANCE & ACCOUNTS) STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- O.P.NO.26847/2002 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DPD/285/521 DATED 13/7/1991. P2 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE BANK NO.35 OF 1994 DATED 23/4/1994. P3 COPY OF THE CHAPTER 1, 2 AND 3 BANK EMPLOYEES (PENSION REGULATION 1993). P4 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ACCTS/PENS/5348 DATED 4/8/1994. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 10/8/1994. P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/4/2001. P7 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATED 5/4/2000 IN SLP(C) NO.7639/99. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(A) COPY OF THE PENSION REGULATION RELEVANT PART. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. 26847 of 2002-U - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings Ext.P4, whereby the respondents rejected his claim for pension on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible. 2. What stood against the petitioner, according to him, is that he had compulsorily retired from service by way of a penalty, as per Ext.P1 order dated 13.7.1991. The punishment was imposed in the course of the disciplinary proceedings and the same has become final. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in the case of persons who have compulsorily retired by way of penalty, the scheme provides for grant of pension. My attention was invited to the definition of “retirement” in Ext.P3 and other provisions therein. 3. The fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out that Ext.P3 has been brought into effect from 29.9.1995, whereby with regard to persons who have compulsorily retired, Regulation No.33 was made applicable. It is mentioned therein that an employee compulsorily retired from service as a penalty on or after 1.11. 1993, will be eligible for op 26847/2002 2 grant of pension at the rate noted therein. It is therefore pointed out that since the petitioner has compulsorily retired by way of penalty before 1.11.1993, he is not eligible for pension as per the above provision. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for pension by treating him as a person who has compulsorily retired from service, cannot be said to be wrong. Herein, the punishment was imposed as per Ext.P1 order dated 13.7.1991. Therefore, the date of effect of the punishment is long prior to the cut off date, viz. 1.11.1993. Learned counsel for the petitioner then invited my attention to para 19 of Ext.P3 providing for compassionate allowance. Under sub para 2, compassionate allowance is provided which should not exceed 2/3rd of pension which would have been otherwise admissible to him. Evidently, compassionate allowance is payable if the case is deserving or special consideration. Therefore, it cannot be said that the same is automatic. 4. The petitioner will have to move the authorities concerned explaining the circumstances and seeking for special consideration. Therefore, on the petitioner submitting an application for grant of compassionate allowance, the same will be considered by the respondents in accordance with the Scheme and the order Ext.P4 will not stand in the way of considering the same. Appropriate representation will be filed op 26847/2002 3 within one month from today and after considering the same, the petitioner will be given a reply within a further period of four months. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ op 26847/2002 4 T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. 26847 of 2002-U - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 9th day of June, 2011.