Siya Ram Mishra v. Central Bank of India & Anr.

1. Counsel for the petitioner was heard at length. At the stage of dictation of the judgment, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, who is present in Court, states that petitioner will be satisfied if he receives all the superannuation benefits taking as final and in terms of the order of the disciplinary authority dated 31.12.1996.

2. As per the order of the disciplinary authority dated 31.12.1996/22.1.1997, petitioner was imposed the punishment of removal from services, however it was specifically with superannuation benefits. In 2013:DHC:6230 view of the fact that the penalty order itself states that petitioner is entitled to all superannuation benefits, the effect of the penalty order would be that petitioner in fact would at best stand normally retired from the date of passing of the order dated 31.12.1996. Accordingly, petitioner will get superannuation benefits as if he stands retired on 22.1.1997.

3. Counsel appearing for respondent no.1-bank states that respondent no.1-bank surely has to comply with the penalty order by paying the superannuation benefits in accordance with the rules as payable to the petitioner, and as per his information petitioner has received the superannuation benefits. This however is disputed and denied by the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, let the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today make a representation before the competent authority of the respondent no.1-bank, with a copy to the counsel for respondent no.1,as to what would be the superannuation benefits which the petitioner would be entitled to as if he stood normally retired on 22.1.1997. Respondent no.1bank will within a period of four weeks of receipt of this representation examine the claim of the petitioner and respond by stating as to what is the amount which is already paid to the petitioner as superannuation benefits if the petitioner normally retired on 22.1.1997. In case any amount more than what is paid by the respondent no.1 as per the response of the respondent no.1 is still claimed by and is payable to the petitioner, then, petitioner will be given a personal hearing by the competent authority to explain his case as to why a particular higher amount is payable to the petitioner. In terms of the hearing given to the petitioner, the competent authority will pass a speaking order as to why any amount which is claimed by the petitioner is payable or not payable taking the order of the disciplinary authority dated 22.1.1997 as correct.

5. If there still remain after passing of the speaking order any issues of calculations or non-payment, then the petitioner will be entitled to approach the Court by showing the entitlement of the petitioner to additional amounts towards superannuation benefits which according to the petitioner are payable and as per respondent no.1 are not payable.

6. Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is not receiving pension which a person would get on his ordinary superannuation from the bank. To this counsel for respondent no.1-bank states that in case petitioner is not getting the pension, then in the representation petitioner may claim pension as per the applicable rules including Rule 31 of the Pension Rules. It is clarified by this Court that petitioner is now entitled, irrespective of any circular/notification of the respondent no.1-bank, to apply for pension to the respondent no.1-bank within a period of six weeks from today if a pension scheme was prevalent in the Bank as on 31.12.1996/22.1.1997. The date for submission of the application, if already expired, will stand extended for a period of six weeks from today for the petitioner to make the necessary application for pension accompanied by the necessary documents. Respondent no.1-bank will respond to this application within a period of four weeks thereafter specifying if any additional document has to be furnished or any act has to be done by the petitioner under the pension scheme for the petitioner to get pension. Petitioner on compliance with the requirements of the pension scheme in terms of the directions issued by the bank, will be paid pension as payable to a person who ordinarily superannuated on 22.1.1997 because that is what is stated in the disciplinary authority order dated 22.1.1997. It is again clarified that in case petitioner has any grievance because of non-payment of superannuation benefits, in terms of the order dated 22.1.1997, petitioner can approach the Court at the relevant stage with his grievance by filing independent proceedings.

7. Finally, I reiterate and hold that the impugned order dated 31.12.1996/22.1.1997 is not a normal order for removal of services but is an order of superannuation as on 22.1.1997 i.e petitioner will be treated as having a normal superannuation on 22.1.1997 with all benefits flowing taking his date of retirement as 22.1.1997.

8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

DECEMBER 02, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib