IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 1524 OF 2006 Between: Y. Prabhakar. - - - Petitioner. AND The Syndicate Bank, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Head Officer, Manipal, Karnataka and another. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.1524 OF 2006 O R D E R: The petitioner, a retired employee of the Syndicate Bank, assails its proceedings dated 19-09-2002 whereby his representation dated 26-08-2002, seeking payment of terminal benefits as per his eligibility duly taking into account the period of his suspension from service, was rejected. The petitioner joined the service of the Syndicate Bank on 18-10-1976 as a Clerk. He was placed under suspension from 02-07-1984 on the ground that he was convicted by a competent Criminal Court for an offence involving moral turpitude. However, the Bank thereafter reinstated him in service under proceedings dated 21-04-1988, whereby, he was categorically informed that his reinstatement would take effect from the date of his reporting for duty and that he would not be entitled for any back wages for the period between the date of his dismissal and the date of his reporting for duty, which would be treated as a break in service and would not be taken into account for any purpose, including increments, gratuity and also earned leave etc., The petitioner reported for duty on 01-06-1988. Thereafter, he opted for voluntary retirement under the scheme floated by the Bank in the year 2000 and was relieved from service on 21-01-2001. As his pensionary benefits were not paid, the petitioner approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.16785 of 2001. Taking note of the proceedings dated 15-11-2001 issued by the Bank stating that the petitioner’s pensionary benefits would be paid, a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the Writ petition by Order dated 08-03-2002. The petitioner was admittedly under suspension from service from 02-07-1984 to 03-02-1986. The break in his service owing to his dismissal was from 03-02-1986 to 31-05-1988 and he reported for duty upon reinstatement on 01-06-1988. The petitioner was paid his gratuity amount duly taking into account the period of his suspension but excluding the period of his dismissal from service. However, the suspension period was not taken into account for paying him ex-gratia and pension. This is the cause for grievance in the present Writ Petition. Reliance is placed by the Bank on Regulation 21 of the Syndicate Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, which states as follows : “Period of suspension of the employee pending enquiry shall be counted for qualifying service where, on conclusion of such enquiry, he has been fully exonerated or the suspension is held to be wholly unjustified, and in other cases, the period of suspension shall not count as qualifying service unless the competent authority passing the orders under the service regulations or discipline and appeal regulations or settlement governing such cases expressly declares at the time that it shall count to such extent as such authority may declare.” Reference is also made to Pension Regulation No.17 which does not provide for payment of pension for the period of suspension/dismissal and the guidelines which speak to the same effect insofar as payment of ex-gratia is concerned. It is however to be noticed that the proceedings dated 17-06- 1986 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service did not deal with the aspect as to how the period of his suspension should be treated. Similarly, the proceedings dated 21-04-1988, whereby he was reinstated into service, speak only about how the period from the date of his dismissal up to the date of his reporting for duty is to be excluded for all purposes. This proceeding is significantly silent as to how the period of the petitioner’s suspension was to be treated. By implication, in the light of Regulation 21, the benefit of doubt would have to go to the petitioner as the Bank only excluded the break in service resulting from the petitioner’s dismissal from service and did not touch upon the period of his suspension from service. The same would therefore necessarily have to be treated as in service. Admittedly, the petitioner was paid subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension. Therefore, he continued to be an employee of the Bank, albeit under suspension, during that period. That being so, this period cannot be excluded for the purpose of computing the petitioner’s ex-gratia and pensionary amounts. As the Bank consciously restricted the break in service to the period covered by the petitioner’s dismissal from service, the suspension period consequently has to be treated as ‘in service’ for all purposes. The proceeding dated 19-09-2002 issued by the bank denying the petitioner the benefit of the said period for the purpose of computation of his pensionary and ex-gratia benefits, is therefore unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The Bank shall duly take into account the period of suspension from service undergone by the petitioner for the purpose of computing his ex-gratia and pensionary amounts and shall remit the same to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. November 22, 2010. Dsh.