Blog

Case Title: Syndicate Bank v. N.R. Bhat

Case No: S.L.P (c) No. 7277/ 2020

Dated on: 10 October 2023

Coram: Hon’ble JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI and JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondent joined the petitioner as an Officer Trainee on 31st March, 1969, and was later posted as a Probationary Junior Officer on 3rd October, 1969. On 6th August, 1982, the respondent was suspended pending disciplinary proceedings. The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent from service on 3rd March, 1997, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority on 6th April, 1997. The respondent challenged these orders by filing a writ petition in the High Court (Writ Petition No.20386/1997). On 23rd June, 2005, the High Court set aside the dismissal and appellate orders, remitting the matter back to the petitioner for reconsideration. The petitioner appealed this decision in an Intra Court Appeal (Writ Appeal No.3255 of 2005). During the appeal, the parties reached an amicable settlement, as per a Joint Memo dated 17th June, 2019. The penalty of dismissal was substituted with a penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay by four stages without affecting the respondent’s retiral benefits. On 17th June, 2019, the Division Bench of the High Court took the Joint Memo on record and allowed the respondent to apply for retiral benefits, instructing the petitioner to pass appropriate orders within eight weeks. Aggrieved by the aforesaid liberty granted to the respondent, the petitioner filed a petition in the supreme court of India.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Syndicate Bank Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1995: These regulations governs the process and entitlements of the bank employees regarding pension.

Circular dated 16th September, 2010: This circular Provided another opportunity for employees who had not opted for the pension scheme earlier to exercise this option.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

The petitioner stated that The High Court ought not to have permitted the respondent-employee to apply for pensionary benefits since the matter was already settled by the Joint Memo of Settlement dated 17th June, 2019. The respondent-employee had an opportunity to opt for the pension scheme in 1995 when the Syndicate Bank Employees (Pension) Regulations were first notified. As he was an employee at that time and failed to opt for the pension scheme, he should not be allowed to demand pension now. The petitioner further drew the attention of the Court to the Circular dated 16th September, 2010 filed by the respondent-employee with counter affidavit (Annexure A) whereunder another opportunity was extended to those employees who had not opted for pension earlier, to enable them to do so in terms of the said circular. Despite this, the respondent-employee did not exercise the option for pension at that time. Since the respondent-employee failed to exercise the pension option during both opportunities, he should be barred from raising the issue of pension in 2019.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The petitioner submitted that despite the Joint Memo of Settlement, he should be allowed to exercise the option for availing pensionary benefits, as permitted by the High Court. The respondent contended that the petitioner due of the high court’s order did not release the amounts payable to the respondent in terms of the Memo of settlement and that the said amounts were finally released as recently as on 30th September, 2023. He, therefore, states that that the respondent-employee ought to be compensated for illegal withholding of the settlement dues payable to him in terms of the Joint Memo dated 17th June, 2019.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Court accepted the petitioner submission that the respondent had opportunities to opt for the pension scheme in 1995, when the Syndicate Bank Employees (Pension) Regulations were first notified, and again in 2010, as per a circular. The Court noted that the dismissal of the respondent in 1997 was set aside by the High Court in 2005, which restored the employer-employee relationship. Therefore, the respondent had an ample opportunity to exercise the pension option in 2010 but failed to do so. The Court held that since the respondent missed the opportunity to opt for the pension scheme when it was available, he could not claim the benefit of pension in 2019, especially after entering into a Joint Memo of Settlement with the petitioner that did not include this option. The Court found merit in the respondent’s contention that the petitioner delayed the implementation of the Joint Memo of Settlement. The Court agreed with the respondent that the petitioner should compensate for the delay in payment. The Court directed the petitioner to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1st July, 2019, until the date the amounts were released (30th September, 2023). The Court further stipulated that if the interest component was not paid within four weeks from the date of the judgment, the interest rate would be increased to 15% per annum. The petition for special leave to appeal and any pending applications, if any,  were disposed of in these terms.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – PRATYASA MISHRA

click here to view judgement