NARENDRA KUMAR versus CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SYNDICATE BANK & ORS. on 30 April 2019

[2019] 9 S.C.R. 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 inrespondent-bank (parent department) went on deputation to the DebtRecovery Tribunal (DRT) – During the period of deputation, heapplied for the post of Presiding Officer at DRT – Respondent-bank forwarded ‘No Objection Certificate’ for consideration ofappellant for the said post – Appellant was selected – Copy ofletter of appointment was endorsed to the respondent-bank –Appellant was asked to take charge – Appellant requested therespondent-bank for permission to take over the charge of the saidnew post but bank sent no response to his letter – DRT released theappellant and then he took over charge as Presiding officer – Aftereleven months, respondent-bank asked the appellant to resign fromthe service of bank – After some communications, appellant tenderedhis resignation which was accepted by the respondent-bank and hewas relieved – Thereafter appellant was informed that only a sumof Rs.2.41 lacs was payable to him on the basis of total service of18 years and 10 months, denying him pensionary benefits byforfeiting the service of 9 years – Appellant filed writ petition beforeHigh Court which was dismissed on the ground that he was notentitled to pension in view of non-compliance of clause 22(2) of thePension Regulations as he was required to join back the services ofthe bank on being relieved from the DRT but he straight away joinedthe post of Presiding officer and, therefore, the period after DRTrelieved him was treated as abandonment of service – On appeal,held: The appellant was on deputation when he was so appointedand took over the new post – Before applying for the post ofPresiding officer, DRT, a ‘No Objection Certificate’ was obtainedfrom the respondent-bank – The period of deputation of the appellant

1

A

B

CD

EFG

H

Awas extended keeping in mind the fact that he had already appliedfor the post and his application was pending consideration – Thefact that he did not report back to the bank for a couple of days;got himself relieved and then joined the post cannot be categorizedas ‘interruption in service’ – He had already addressed acommunication to respondent-bank which elicited no response forB11 months – Even the parent Ministry of respondent-bank, broughtto the notice of the bank the inappropriateness of not extending thebenefits – Impugned decisions of the respondent bank were whollyunjustified – Syndicate Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995.

Allowing the appeal, the CourtC

Conclusion

Allowing the appeal, the CourtC

HELD: The appellant was on deputation from time to time.It was during the extended period that the appellant was issuedthe appointment letter. It is a hyper technical view to take thatthe appellant ought to have joined the respondent No.1 Bank fora couple of days, got himself relieved and then joined the officeDof the Presiding Officer, DRT. It, thus, appears to be more of anego issue rather than any case of service impropriety or illegality.The appellant even took the precaution to write a letter torespondent No.1 Bank for permission to take over charge of thenew post of Presiding Officer which post he had to occupy withinEa period of one month. This letter received no response for 11months, a clear laxity on the part of the respondent No.1 Bank.The appellant, thus, joined the post of the Presiding Officer. Noshadow whatsoever can be cast over the conduct of the appellantin this behalf. There was no interruption of service of the Bankemployee as would cause such forfeiture. The appellant was onFdeputation 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 ofdays, got himself relieved and then joined the post cannot becategorized as ‘interruption in service’ by any stretch ofimagination. [Paras 14, 15] [8-D-G; 9-A-B]G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.4489of 2019

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2017 of the HighCourt at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition Service BenchNo. 947 of 2010

H

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 DattaMajumdar, 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, respondentNo.1, as a Law Officer in the year 1979. He went on deputation to theDebt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad as Secretary/Registrar for a periodof three years from 25.3.1996 which period was extended by one yearwhen he was posted in that capacity in Allahabad. The appellant wasthereafter repatriated to the parent department of the respondent afterfour years.

3. The appellant was again sent on deputation as Secretary/Registrar of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad for oneyear 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 theChairperson writing a letter to the Executive Director of the SyndicateBank, by a notification dated 10.2.2005, the appellant was granted furtherextension of six months upto 28.5.2005.

4. On 26.6.2005, an advertisement was published notifyingvacancies for the post of Presiding Officer at Debt Recovery Tribunal,Lucknow for which post the appellant applied on 12.4.2005 during hisperiod of deputation. The deputation was soon thereafter furtherextended upto 28.11.2005. Ministry of Finance, Union of India, respondentNo.4 addressed a letter dated 2.8.2005 to respondent No.1 requesting toforward a ‘No Objection Certificate’ for consideration of the appellantfor the post of Presiding Officer in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknowand the said ‘No Objection Certificate’ was issued by the respondentNo.1 on 24.8.2005. In view of this development, the appellant requestedthe respondent Bank on 6.10.2005 for an extension of the period ofdeputation for a period of one year but the same elicited no responsefrom the Bank. On 22.10.2005, the appellant appeared for interaction A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Abefore the Selection Committee chaired by an Hon’ble Judge of thisCourt in pursuance of the letter addressed to him on 10.10.2005. TheChairperson of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad also requested theUnion of India for extension of the appellant on deputation on 18.11.2005in view of this development and ultimately the period of deputation wasextended with retrospective effect from 29.11.2005 to 28.5.2006 videBnotification dated 1.12.2005.

5. The appellant was selected for the post of Presiding Officer,Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow and the appointment letter dated20.01.2006 was issued and addressed to the Chairman and ManagingDirector of the respondent No.1 Bank with a copy endorsed to theCappellant and the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,Allahabad. In terms of this appointment letter, the appellant was calledupon to take over the charge as a Presiding Officer within one monthfrom the date of issue of the letter. The appellant, thus, wrote torespondent No.1 Bank on 25.1.2006 requesting for permission to take Dover the charge of the said new post. No response was sent by theBank to this letter. The Chairperson, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunalreleased the appellant on 27.1.2006 and the appellant thereafter tookover the charge of the post of Presiding Officer. A notification dated9.2.2006 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. 30.1.2006Eor till he attained the age of 62 years with a copy marked to respondentNo.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 respectof the said appointment, which reads as under:F

“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 thePresiding Officer at DRT, Lucknow. As per the terms of yoursaid appointment, you are governed by the Terms and Conditions,Gas stipulated in Debts Recovery Tribunal (Salaries, Allowanceand 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, on29.11.2001 and the term was extended by the Board of the Bank H

upto 29.11.2005, as a very special case. As you have joined DRT,Lucknow, after relief from DRAT, Allahabad, without our consentand without seeking relief from the service of the Bank, consequentto your fresh appointment, the Competent Authority has directedus to seek your retirement from the Bank’s service. Pleaseforward your application immediately.”

7. The appellant responded to this letter on 12.1.2007 stating thathe was submitting an application for retirement for which approval fromrespondent No.4 was required for which he addressed a letter of evendate. However, the respondent No.1 Bank on 19.2.2007 called upon theappellant to resign from the service of the Bank as he had taken over asPresiding officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Some communicationin this behalf was exchanged but, suffice to say that, ultimately theappellant resigned and that resignation was accepted by the respondentNo.1 Bank vide letter dated 10.3.2008. The said letter informed theappellant that he was being relieved from the services of the Bank byacceptance of his request for voluntary retirement with immediate effect.However, the dispute which forms the subject matter of the presentproceedings arose from the latter part of this letter which reads as under:

“Please note that though you have opted for Pension underSyndicate Bank Employees Pension Regulations 1995, you arenot 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 interruptionin the service of the Bank employee entails forfeiture of his pastservice”. You were relieved from DRAT on 27.01.2006 and youshould have joined our services immediately thereafter, but youhave failed to do so. Instead of joining the Bank and gettingrelieved from the services of the Bank, you had directly joinedDebt Recoveries Tribunal, Lucknow, violating laid down norms ofService Conditions applicable to you in our Bank. Hence, yourabsence from 28.01.2006 is treated as willful abandonment ofservice/Unauthorised absence.

2. In terms of Clause No.29 of SBEPR-1995, “on or after 1[st] dayof November 1993, at any time after an employee has completed20 years of qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less A

B

C

D

E

FG

Athan 3 months in writing to the appointing authority retire fromservice.

Whereas as stipulated in para 1, without any intimation/notice youhave joined DRT, Lucknow and you did not get yourselves properlyrelieved from the services of the Bank and thereby you haveBviolated Regulation No.29 of SBEPR-1995.”

8. On 6.5.2008, the appellant was informed that only a sum ofRs.2,41,800/- was payable to the appellant on the basis of the total periodof service of 18 years and 10 months. Thus, effectively the respondentNo.1 Bank forfeited the services of the appellant of 9 years and grantedCbenefit 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 pointingout that his service was of 29 years and 2 months as the period ofdeputation in the DRT and DRAT was part of continuous service of theparent department for the purpose of gratuity. Pensionary benefits wererequested vide letter dated 15.7.2008 but this did not invoke a positiveDresponse. The appellant, thus, addressed a letter to respondent No.4which in turn addressed the communication to the Bank seeking asympathetic consideration of the case of the appellant. But ultimatelythe request of the appellant was still rejected by the respondent No.1Bank vide a letter dated 31.5.2010.

E9. The appellant filed a Writ Petition No.947(SB)/2010 before theAllahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench making the following prayers:

“a. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorarithereby quashing the impugned order dated 31.05.2010 and dated10.03.2008 as contained in Annexure-1 & Annexure-2 to the writFpetition passed by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

b. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamuscommanding the opposite parties 1 & 2 to grant the pensionarybenefit to the petitioner and pay the entire arrears to the petitionerwith interest.”

G

Interim orders were granted in favour of the appellant on15.7.2010 staying the operation of the impugned orders dated 31.05.2010and 10.03.2008.

10. The Bank opposed the writ petition and pleadings werecompleted. Some supplementary affidavits were also filed and, alongwith H

NARENDRA KUMAR v. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGINGDIRECTOR, SYNDICATE BANK [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J.]

the same, the appellant filed a letter dated 25.7.2013 addressed by therespondent No.4 to respondent No.1 Bank obtained through RTI, therelevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:

“From the abovementioned events, it may be observed thatappointment of Shri Kumar was made after proper No Objection& Vigilance Clearance from the bank. The appointment offerdated 20.01.2006 was also sent to them giving clear stipulationsthat Shri Kumar is requested to assume the charge of the postwithin the stipulated period. When Shri Kumar joined the post, anotification dated 09.02.2006 was issued which was also sent tothe Bank. There was no communication from bank after issue ofappointment letter dated 20.01.2006 and notification dated09.02.2006. Bank raised the matter with the Ministry for the firsttime vide letter dated 17.7.2006 after a gap of more than 6 months.

It may also be observed that during the completecorrespondence between Ministry & Bank there was no indicationabout treatment of service of Shri Kumar & it was on directionsof the bank that Shri Kumar took retirement from service of bank.Thus, action of the bank in treating the service of ShriKumar from Jan 2006 to date of retirement as unauthorizedabsence and denial of pensionary benefits does not appearappropriate.”

[emphasis supplied]

The communication addressed by respondent No.4 to respondentNo.1, however, did not invoke any response.

11. The writ petition was heard and dismissed on 31.3.2017 bythe Division Bench. It is this order which is sought to be assailed in thepresent appeal. The impugned order records that the appellant was notgranted pension in view of the alleged non-compliance of Clause 22(2)of the Syndicate Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafterreferred to as ‘Pension Regulations’) as he was required to join backthe service of the bank on being relieved from the DRT on 27.1.2006 buthe straight away joined the post of the Presiding Officer of the DRT,Lucknow. The period from 28.1.2006 was treated as willful abandonmentof service. The relevant extract of the Pension Regulations reads asunder:

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A“22.Forfeiture of Service:-

(1) …………

(2) An interruption in the service of a Bank employee entailsforfeiture of his past service, except in the following cases,namely-”

B

12. The impugned order recognizes that ‘No Objection Certificate’to participate in the selection process had been obtained by the appellantbut the fact that he joined the post of the Presiding Officer, DRT withoutreporting to his parent department was considered fatal. The conductof the appellant was held to be treated as abandonment of bank service.

C

13. We have examined the submissions advanced by learnedcounsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 in thecontours of the aforesaid factual position. In our view, the impugneddecisions of the respondent No.1 Bank are wholly unjustified andunsustainable in law even as per the Pension Regulations.

D

14. The appellant was on deputation from time to time. Beforeapplying for the post of Presiding officer, DRT, a ‘No ObjectionCertificate’ had been obtained from the respondent No.1 Bank. Theperiod of deputation of the appellant was extended keeping in mind thefact that he had already applied for the post and his application wasEpending consideration. It is during the extended period that the appellantwas issued the appointment letter on 20.1.2006. To say the least, it is ahyper technical view to take that the appellant ought to have joined therespondent No.1 Bank for a couple of days, got himself relieved andthen joined the office of the Presiding Officer, DRT. It, thus, appears toFbe more of an ego issue rather than any case of service impropriety orillegality. The appellant even took the precaution to write a letter on25.1.2006 to respondent No.1 Bank for permission to take over chargeof the new post of Presiding Officer which post he had to occupy withina period of one month as stated aforesaid from the date of issue of letterdated 20.1.2006. This letter received no response for 11 months, a clearGlaxity on the part of the respondent No.1 Bank. The appellant, thus,joined the post of the Presiding Officer. No shadow whatsoever can becast over the conduct of the appellant in this behalf.

15. Now, turning even to the so called technicality of the appellantbased on Clause 22(2) of the Pension Regulations, the same requires H

NARENDRA KUMAR v. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGINGDIRECTOR, SYNDICATE BANK [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J.]

any interruption in service of a Bank employee to entail forfeiture of hispast service. In our view, there was no interruption of service of theBank employee as would cause such forfeiture. The appellant was ondeputation when he was so appointed and took over the new post. Thefact that he did not report back to the Bank for a couple of days, gothimself 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.1Bank on 25.1.2006 which elicited no response for 11 months. We mayalso add that even the Ministry of Finance, the parent Ministry ofrespondent No.1 Bank, brought to the notice of the Bank theinappropriateness of not extending the benefits by commenting, asextracted aforesaid. It has been noted that there was no communicationfrom the Bank after issue of appointment letter dated 20.1.2006 andnotification dated 9.2.2006 till the matter was raised with the Ministryfor the first time by the Bank after a gap of more than 6 months on17.7.2006.

16. It is unfortunate that such a stand was sought to be taken bythe Bank resting on unjustified ego of someone, causing immense sufferingto the appellant. We are, thus, of the view that the impugned orders inthe Writ Petition No.947(SB)/2010 and orders issued by respondent No.1Bank are unsustainable and are, accordingly, quashed. The Writ Petitionfiled by the appellant before the High Court is liable to be allowed andthe impugned order of the Division Bench set aside. Appeal is allowed.

17. We also consider it appropriate to impose costs on therespondent No.1 Bank, in view of what we have discussed aforesaid,quantified at Rs.25,000/-. The amount due to the appellant alongwithinterest, as per norms, and the cost imposed be remitted to the appellantby Respondent No.1 within a maximum period of 2 months from today.

Appeal allowed.

Devika Gujral

AB

CD

EF

G

H