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 – Respondentbank 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 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.