Case: NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR SYNDICATE BANK

in favour of the appellant on 15.7.2010 staying the operation of the impugned orders dated 31.05.2010 and 10.03.2008. 10. The Bank opposed the writ petition and pleadings were completed. Some supplementary affidavits were also filed and, alongwith the same, the appellant filed a letter dated 25.7.2013 addressed by the respondent No.4 to respondent No.1 Bank obtained through RTI, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: From the abovementioned events, it may be observed that appointment of Shri Kumar was made after proper No Objection & Vigilance Clearance from the bank. The appointment offer dated 20.01.2006 was also sent to them giving clear stipulations that Shri Kumar is requested to assume the charge of the post within the stipulated period. When Shri Kumar joined the post, a notification dated 09.02.2006 was issued which was also sent to the Bank. There was no communication from bank after issue of appointment letter dated 20.01.2006 and notification dated 09.02.2006. Bank raised the matter with the Ministry for the first time vide letter dated 17.7.2006 after a gap of more than 6 months. It may also be observed that during the complete correspondence between Ministry & Bank there was no indication about treatment of service of Shri Kumar & it was on directions of the bank that Shri Kumar took retirement from service of bank. Thus, action of the bank in treating the service of Shri Kumar from Jan 2006 to date of retirement as unauthorized absence and denial of pensionary benefits does not appear appropriate. [emphasis supplied] The communication addressed by respondent No.4 to respondent No.1, however, did not invoke any response. 11. The writ petition was heard and dismissed on 31.3.2017 by the Division Bench. It is this order which is sought to be assailed in the present appeal. The impugned order records that the appellant was not granted pension in view of the alleged non-compliance of Clause 22(2) of the Syndicate Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Pension Regulations) as he was required to join back the service of the bank on being relieved from the DRT on 27.1.2006 but he straight away joined the post of the Presiding Officer of the DRT, Lucknow. The period from 28.1.2006 was treated as willful abandonment of service. The relevant extract of the Pension Regulations reads as under: 22. Forfeiture of Service:- (1) ………… (2) An interruption in the service of a Bank employee entails forfeiture of his past service, except in the following cases, namely- 12. The impugned order recognizes that No Objection Certificate to participate in the selection process had been obtained by the appellant but the fact that he joined the post of the Presiding Officer, DRT without reporting to his parent department was considered fatal. The conduct of the appellant was held to be treated as abandonment of bank service. 13. We have examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 in the contours of the aforesaid factual position. In our view, the impugned decisions of the respondent No.1 Bank are wholly unjustified and unsustainable in law even as per the Pension Regulations. 14. The appellant was on deputation from time to time. Before applying for the post of Presiding officer, DRT, a No Objection Certificate had been obtained from the respondent No.1 Bank. The period of deputation of the appellant was extended keeping in mind the fact that he had already applied for the post and his application was pending consideration. It is during the extended period that the appellant was issued the appointment letter on 20.1.2006. T o say the least, it is a hyper technical view to take that the appellant ought to have joined the respondent No.1 Bank for a couple of days, got himself relieved and then joined the office of the Presiding Officer, DRT. It, thus, appears to be more of an ego issue rather than any case of service impropriety or illegality. The appellant even took the precaution to write a letter on 25.1.2006 to respondent No.1 Bank for permission to take over charge of the new post of Presiding Officer which post he had to occupy within a period of one month as stated aforesaid from the date of issue of letter dated 20.1.2006. This letter received no response for 11 months, a clear laxity on the part of the respondent No.1 Bank. The appellant, thus, joined the post of the Presiding Officer. No shadow whatsoever can be cast over the conduct of the appellant in this behalf. 15. Now, turning even to the so called technicality of the appellant based on Clause 22(2) of the Pension Regulations, the same requires any interruption in service of a Bank employee to entail forfeiture of his past service. In our view, there was no interruption of service of the Bank employee as would cause such forfeiture. The appellant was on deputation when he was so appointed and took over the new post. The fact that he did not report back to the Bank for a couple of days, got himself relieved and then joined the post cannot be categorized as interruption in service by any stretch of imagination. As noticed above, the appellant had already addressed a communication to respondent No.1 Bank on 25.1.2006 which elicited no response for 11 months. We may also add that even the Ministry of Finance, the parent Ministry of respondent No.1 Bank, brought to the notice of the Bank the inappropriateness of not extending the benefits by commenting, as extracted aforesaid. It has been noted that there was no communication from the Bank after issue of appointment letter dated 20.1.2006 and notification dated 9.2.2006 till the matter was raised with the Ministry for the first time by the Bank after a gap of more than 6 months on 17.7.2006. 16. It is unfortunate that such a stand was sought to be taken by the Bank resting on unjustified ego of someone, causing immense suffering to the appellant.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]13. We have examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 in the contours of the aforesaid factual position. In our view, the impugned decisions of the respondent No.1 Bank are wholly unjustified and unsustainable in law even as per the Pension Regulations14. The appellant was on deputation from time to time. Before applying for the post of Presiding officer, DRT, a No Objection Certificate had been obtained from the respondent No.1 Bank. The period of deputation of the appellant was extended keeping in mind the fact that he had already applied for the post and his application was pending consideration. It is during the extended period that the appellant was issued the appointment letter on 20.1.2006. T o say the least, it is a hyper technical view to take that the appellant ought to have joined the respondent No.1 Bank for a couple of days, got himself relieved and then joined the office of the Presiding Officer, DRT. It, thus, appears to be more of an ego issue rather than any case of service impropriety or illegality. The appellant even took the precaution to write a letter on 25.1.2006 to respondent No.1 Bank for permission to take over charge of the new post of Presiding Officer which post he had to occupy within a period of one month as stated aforesaid from the date of issue of letter dated 20.1.2006. This letter received no response for 11 months, a clear laxity on the part of the respondent No.1 Bank. The appellant, thus, joined the post of the Presiding Officer. No shadow whatsoever can be cast over the conduct of the appellant in this behalf15. Now, turning even to the so called technicality of the appellant based on Clause 22(2) of the Pension Regulations, the same requires any interruption in service of a Bank employee to entail forfeiture of his past service. In our view, there was no interruption of service of the Bank employee as would cause such forfeiture. The appellant was on deputation when he was so appointed and took over the new post. The fact that he did not report back to the Bank for a couple of days, got himself relieved and then joined the post cannot be categorized as interruption in service by any stretch of imagination. As noticed above, the appellant had already addressed a communication to respondent No.1 Bank on 25.1.2006 which elicited no response for 11 months. We may also add that even the Ministry of Finance, the parent Ministry of respondent No.1 Bank, brought to the notice of the Bank the inappropriateness of not extending the benefits by commenting, as extracted aforesaid. It has been noted that there was no communication from the Bank after issue of appointment letter dated 20.1.2006 and notification dated 9.2.2006 till the matter was raised with the Ministry for the first time by the Bank after a gap of more than 6 months on 17.7.200616. It is unfortunate that such a stand was sought to be taken by the Bank resting on unjustified ego of someone, causing immense suffering to the appellant.