1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:11.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD).No.12814 of 2011 V.Pannerselvam :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, No.763, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The AGM (Personnel), Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, No.763, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Principal Accountant General (A&E), 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. :Respondents PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give pension to the petitioner in accordance with the 9th bipartite settlement dated 27.04.2010 and Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations 1995. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Karthik Kanna For R1 & R2 : Mr.Pala.Ramasamy For R3 : Mr.R.Gunasekaran ORDER The petitioner has come forward with this petition, seeking writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to give pension to the petitioner in accordance with the 9th bipartite settlement dated 27.04.2010 reached under Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations 1995. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner viz., V.Pannerselvam was appointed in the Indian Overseas Bank and served from 1980 to 1995. During his service period viz., 1983 he was transferred to Madurai City, North Vadampokki Street Branch and thereafter, he was again transferred to K.Pudhur Branch, Madurai and worked till 1990. In the year 1990, he was promoted as a Clerk and joined in Kadalaady Branch, Ramnad District and again he was transferred to Keeramangalam Branch, Karaikudi Region, Pudhukottai District. At the end of the year 1994, he was keeping ill health. On account of his ill health, he applied medical leave for 4 days, in view of his continuous ill health, his wife from Malaysia called the petitioner to come to Malaysia, accepting the advise, the petitioner went to Malaysia. Subsequently, the petitioner did not turn up, as a result of his continuous absence from duty, he was served with a communication sent by the respondent dated 16.10.1995, informing the petitioner that he was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 terminated from service, therefore, the case of the petitioner is that since he was worked from 1980 till 16.10.1995, the petitioner is entitled to get pension. 3.At the outset, it is made clear that the case of the petitioner cannot be taken into account for the simple reason, though the petitioner by communication dated 16.10.1995 was informed that his service was terminated because of his long absence from duty, but the said communication dated 16.10.1995 was not challenged till now. When his order of termination dated 16.10.95 became final the petitioner is not legally entitled to get pension since his service was already terminated as early as on 16.10.95. Secondly, the petitioner having taken various loans, he has not repaid them. In view of non-payment of his loan amount, whatever the PF amount was sanctioned to the petitioner, the same was adjusted towards various loan accounts. Therefore, in all fairness, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the communication dated 16.10.1995, in the year 2011. Moreover, due to his failure to challenge the dismissal order, his further prayer sought for, to get pension in accordance with the 9th bipartite settlement dated 27.04.2010 also cannot be legally entertained by this Court. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Apex Court in Syndicate Bank, Banagalore vs. Satya Srinath reported in 2007-II-LLJ, wherein, the appellant was held entitled to get pension as he has rendered 28 years of service, but the case in hand is completely different as already mentioned that the petitioner was already terminated from service by the said communication dated 16.10.95, but, the said communication has not been challenged by the petitioner till now, hence, the above judgment relied upon by the petitioner cannot be pressed into service. With the above said observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, No.763, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.The AGM (Personnel),Indian Overseas Bank,Central Office, No.763, Anna Salai,Chennai-600 002. 3.The Principal Accountant General (A&E), 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. +1CC to Mr.P.Gunasekaran, Advocate. SR.No.39578. RP/20.12.2011/2P/5C. W.P.(MD).No.12814 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/