NARENDRA KUMAR  versus CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SYNDICATE BANK & ORS.
[2019] 9 S.C.R. 1, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Body
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
                       NARENDRA KUMAR
v
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SYNDICATE BANK & ORS.
 (Civil Appeal No. 4489 of 2019)
APRIL 30, 2019
             [S.A. BOBDE,  SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND
      INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Service Law: Pension – Qualifying period for pension –
Interruption in service – Appellant working as law officer in
respondent-bank (parent department) went on deputation to the Debt
Recovery Tribunal (DRT) – During the period of deputation, he
applied for the post of Presiding Officer at DRT – Respondent-
bank forwarded ‘No Objection Certificate’ for consideration of
appellant for the said post –  Appellant was selected – Copy of
letter of appointment was endorsed to the respondent-bank –
Appellant was asked to take charge – Appellant requested the
respondent-bank for permission to take over the charge of the said
new post but bank sent no response to his letter – DRT released the
appellant and then he took over charge as Presiding officer – After
eleven months, respondent-bank asked the appellant to resign from
the service of bank – After some communications, appellant tendered
his resignation which was accepted by the respondent-bank and he
was relieved – Thereafter appellant was informed that only a sum
of Rs.2.41 lacs was payable to him on the basis of total service of
18 years and 10 months, denying him pensionary benefits by
forfeiting the service of 9 years – Appellant filed writ petition before
High Court which was dismissed on the
ground that he was not
entitled to pension in view of non-compliance of clause 22(2) of the
Pension Regulations as he was required to join back the services of
the bank on being relieved from the DRT but he straight away joined
the post of Presiding officer and, therefore, the period after DRT
relieved him was treated as abandonment of service – On appeal,
held: The appellant was on deputation when he was so appointed
and took over the new post – Before applying for the post of
Presiding officer, DRT, a ‘No Objection Certificate’ was obtained
from the respondent-bank – The period of deputation of the appellant
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 1
     1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
was extended keeping in mind the fact that he had already applied
for the post and his application was pending consideration – 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’ – He had already addressed a
communication to respondent-bank which elicited no response for
11 months – Even the parent Ministry of respondent-bank, brought
to the notice of the bank the inappropriateness of not extending the
benefits – Impugned decisions of the respondent bank were wholly
unjustified – Syndicate Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  The appellant was on deputation from time to time.
It was during the extended period that the appellant was issued
the appointment letter. 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 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.  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.  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. [Paras 14, 15] [8-D-G; 9-A-B]
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.4489
of 2019
From the Judgment and Order  dated  31.03.2017 of the High
Court at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition Service Bench
No. 947 of 2010
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
Raju Ramchandran, Sr. Adv., Ms. Amita Sehgal, Satish Mathur,
Pawan, Ms. Puja Sharma, Advs.  for the Appellant.
Adarsh B. Dial, Sr. Adv., Rajiv Nanda, Ms. Ananya Datta
Majumdar, Ms. Sumati Anand, P. V. Yogeswaran, Rupesh Kumar,
Hemant Arya, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant joined the services of Syndicate Bank, respondent
No.1, as a Law Officer in the year 1979.  He went on deputation to the
Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad as Secretary/Registrar for a period
of three years from 25.3.1996 which period was extended by one year
when he was posted in that capacity in Allahabad.  The appellant was
thereafter repatriated to the parent department of the respondent after
four years.
3. The appellant was again sent on deputation as Secretary/
Registrar of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad for one
year on 29.11.2001 which period was extended twice by one year each.
The request of the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
Allahabad requesting for further extension of deputation was, however,
declined by the respondent No.1, his parent department.  But on the
Chairperson writing a letter to the Executive Director of the Syndicate
Bank, by a notification dated 10.2.2005, the appellant was granted further
extension of six months upto 28.5.2005.
4. On 26.6.2005, an advertisement was published notifying
vacancies for the post of
Presiding Officer at Debt Recovery Tribunal,
Lucknow for which post the appellant applied on 12.4.2005 during his
period of deputation.  The deputation was soon thereafter further
extended upto 28.11.2005.  Ministry of Finance, Union of India, respondent
No.4 addressed a letter dated 2.8.2005 to respondent No.1 requesting to
forward a ‘No Objection Certificate’ for consideration of the appellant
for the post of Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow
and the said ‘No Objection Certificate’ was issued by the respondent
No.1 on 24.8.2005.  In view of this development, the appellant requested
the respondent Bank on 6.10.2005 for an extension of the period of
deputation for a period of one year but the same elicited no response
from the Bank.  On 22.10.2005, the appellant appeared for interaction
    NARENDRA KUMAR v. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR,  SYNDICATE BANK .
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
4
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
before the Selection Committee chaired by an Hon’ble Judge of this
Court in pursuance of the letter addressed to him on 10.10.2005.  The
Chairperson of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad also requested the
Union of India for extension of the appellant on deputation on 18.11.2005
in view of this development and ultimately the period of deputation was
extended with retrospective effect from 29.11.2005 to 28.5.2006 vide
notification dated 1.12.2005.
5. The appellant was selected for the post of Presiding Officer,
Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow and the appointment letter dated
20.01.2006 was issued and addressed to the Chairman and Managing
Director of the respondent No.1 Bank with a copy endorsed to the
appellant and the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
Allahabad.  In terms of this appointment letter, the appellant was called
upon to take over the charge as a Presiding Officer within one month
from the date of issue of the letter.  The appellant, thus, wrote to
respondent No.1 Bank on 25.1.2006 requesting for permission to take
over the charge of the said new post.  No response was sent by the
Bank to this letter.  The Chairperson, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal
released the appellant on 27.1.2006 and the appellant thereafter took
over the charge of the post of Presiding Officer.  A notification dated
9.2.2006 was issued by the Union of India/respondent No.4 of taking
over charge of the appellant for
a period of five years w.e.f. 30.1.2006
or till he attained the age of 62 years with a copy marked to respondent
No.1 Bank.
6. It is only after a gap of almost eleven months that, on 15.12.2006,
the appellant received a letter from the respondent No.1 Bank in respect
of the said appointment, which reads as under:
“We have for reference Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) letter No.A-
15012/1/2005-DRT dated 20.01.2006, appointing you as the
Presiding Officer at DRT, Lucknow.  As per the terms of your
said appointment, you are governed by the Terms and Conditions,
as stipulated in Debts Recovery Tribunal (Salaries, Allowance
and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Presiding Officer)
Rules, 1998 and your retirement age is 62 years.
Further, you are deputed by the Bank to DRAT, Allahabad, on
29.11.2001 and the term was extended by the Board of the Bank
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
5
upto 29.11.2005, as a very special case.  As you have joined DRT,
Lucknow, after relief from DRAT, Allahabad, without our consent
and without seeking relief from the service of the Bank, consequent
to your fresh appointment, the Competent Authority has directed
us to seek your retirement from the Bank’s service.  Please
forward your application immediately.”
7. The appellant responded to this letter on 12.1.2007 stating that
he was submitting an application for retirement for which approval from
respondent No.4 was required for which he addressed a letter of even
date. However, the respondent No.1 Bank on 19.2.2007 called upon the
appellant to resign from the service of the Bank as he had taken over as
Presiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal.  Some communication
in this behalf was exchanged but, suffice to say that, ultimately the
appellant resigned and that resignation was accepted by the respondent
No.1 Bank vide letter dated 10.3.2008.  The said letter informed the
appellant that he was being relieved from the services of the Bank by
acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement with immediate effect.
However, the dispute which forms the subject matter of the present
proceedings arose from the latter part of this letter which reads as under:
“Please note that though you have opted for Pension under
Syndicate Bank Employees Pension Regulations 1995, you are
not entitled for any pensionary benefits in view of the non-
compliance of the
following:-
1. Clause No.22(2) of SBEPR-1995 stated that “an interruption
in the service of the Bank employee entails forfeiture of his past
service”.  You were relieved from DRAT on 27.01.2006 and you
should have joined our services immediately thereafter, but you
have failed to do so.  Instead of joining the Bank and getting
relieved from the services of the Bank, you had directly joined
Debt Recoveries Tribunal, Lucknow, violating laid down norms of
Service Conditions applicable to you in our Bank.  Hence, your
absence from 28.01.2006 is treated as willful abandonment of
service/Unauthorised absence.
2. In terms of Clause No.29 of SBEPR-1995, “on or after 1st day
of November 1993, at any time after an employee has completed
20 years of qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less
    NARENDRA KUMAR v. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR, SYNDICATE BANK [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
than 3 months in writing to the appointing authority retire from
service.
Whereas as stipulated in para 1, without any intimation/notice you
have joined DRT, Lucknow and you did not get yourselves properly
relieved from the services of the Bank and thereby you have
violated Regulation No.29 of SBEPR-1995.”
8. On 6.5.2008, the appellant was informed that only a sum of
Rs.2,41,800/- was payable to the appellant on the basis of the total period
of service of 18 years and 10 months.  Thus, effectively the respondent
No.1 Bank forfeited the services of the appellant of 9 years and granted
benefit of gratuity to the appellant on the basis of 18 years of service.
This was disputed by the appellant vide letter dated 10.7.2008 pointing
out that his service was of 29 years and 2 months as the period of
deputation in the DRT and DRAT was part of continuous service of the
parent department for the purpose of gratuity.  Pensionary benefits were
requested vide letter dated 15.7.2008 but this did not invoke a positive
response.  The appellant, thus, addressed a letter to respondent No.4
which in turn addressed the communication to the Bank seeking a
sympathetic consideration of the case of the appellant.  But ultimately
the request of the appellant was still rejected by the respondent No.1
Bank vide a letter dated 31.5.2010.
9. The appellant filed a Writ Petition No.947(SB)/2010 before the
Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench making
the following prayers:
“a. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari
thereby quashing the impugned order dated 31.05.2010 and dated
10.03.2008 as contained in Annexure-1 & Annexure-2 to the writ
petition passed by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
b. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the opposite parties 1 & 2 to grant the pensionary
benefit to the petitioner and pay the entire arrears to the petitioner
with interest.”
Interim orders were granted 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
7
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:
  NARENDRA KUMAR v. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR, SYNDICATE BANK [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
“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.  To 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
9
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.  We are, thus, of the view that the impugned orders in
the Writ Petition No.947(SB)/2010 and orders issued by respondent No.1
Bank are unsustainable and are, accordingly, quashed.  The Writ Petition
filed by the appellant before the High Court is liable to be allowed and
the impugned order of the Division Bench set aside.  Appeal is allowed.
17. We also consider it appropriate to impose costs on the
respondent No.1 Bank, in  view  of  what  we have discussed aforesaid,
quantified at Rs.25,000/-. The amount due to the appellant alongwith
interest, as per norms, and the cost imposed be remitted to the appellant
by Respondent No.1 within a maximum period of 2 months from today.
Devika Gujral
                                 Appeal allowed.
   NARENDRA KUMAR v. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR, SYNDICATE BANK [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J.]