Supreme court has dismissed Special Leave Petition filed by Andhra Bank, in the case of an employee with 40 years of service, who was denied pension option. Now Supreme court has directed to pay the pension to the employee.We have received communique from Shri R.K. Pathak, President , Resigned bank employees forum which is reproduced below.
Quote
I am narrating herewith the events & role of the Bank, how they by taking advantage of its own wrong in denying pension to its employee, who served for 40 years & voluntarily retired in June 1986.
1) Mr. D. Malleswara Rao, joined the services f Andhra Bank in 1946 & served for 40 years & on account of illness he requested for voluntary retirement & accordingly Bank allowed him to retire & all terminal benefits were paid to him.
2) On 3-5-1994, he submitted an application to come under the pension scheme. Again, another application was made to the Zonal Office on 4-7-1994 exercising option for payment of pension as per the scheme contemplated under the Regulations. The Bank addressed a letter dated 2-8-1994 stating that his request for joining Bank's Pension Scheme is not acceptable, as he is not eligible for pension benefit, since his resignation was accepted by the Bank and was relieved on 30-6-1986. According to the petitioner, he never submitted any resignation letter to the Bank and he submitted an application to permit him to retire voluntarily. He never intended to resign the post. He gave letters to Bank on 27/09/1994,09/01/1995 and again on 22/01/1996.
3)However, he received a letter dated 2-3-1996 stating that his exit from the Bank is consequent upon his resignation and as per Clause 22, Chapter IV of Andhra Bank Employees Pension Rgulations, 1995 resignation, dismissal or termination of an employee from service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not be eligible for pensionary benefits.
4) D.Malleswara Rao filed WP( 12564 of 1998) against the high court of AP & verdict came to his favour in August 2005[ copy enclosed] & important points of the judgement are:-
a) Whether there was a scheme or no scheme, when a person wants to retire on his own, it is called voluntary retirement. Simply because there was no scheme, it cannot be said that the petitioner has resigned from the post.
b) An employee can seek voluntary retirement without any objection from the Management after rendering prescribed period of qualifying service. The request for voluntary retirement can be refused only when the rules or service conditions give such option to the employer. Admittedly, in the case on hand, no such rule or service condition is brought to the notice of the Court saying that there is a provision under the Regulations of the Bank, which gives option to the employer to reject such an application.
c)For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the opinion that treating the petitioner as resigned from service is arbitrary and illegal. It must be deemed that the petitioner has been retired voluntarily. The application of the petitioner for payment of pension under the Regulations shall be considered, after asking the petitioner to fulfil the conditions and he shall be paid all the arrears there against, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Bank preferred to file Writ Appeal [1899 of 2005] against this judgement & which came to be decided on 30/08/2013 [ copy enclosed] by dismissing the writ Appeal filed by the Bank. In the process of Writ Appeal, the petitioner expired & her spouse was brought on record.
Bank again preferred to file SLP in Supreme Court & SLP was dismissed with following order on 29/11/2013.[ copy enclosed]
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
This petition is directed against order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the learned Single Judge who allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and declared that he is entitled to pension under the Pension Scheme introduced in 1995.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the record.
In our view, the concurrent conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court that the letter of voluntary retirement submitted by the respondent some time in 1986 could not have been treated as a letter of resignation is correct and the order under challenge does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Now this case belongs to voluntary retirement prior to 01/11/1993 { Settlement covers voluntary retirement between 01/11/1993 to 29/09/1995} where bank had not framed the scheme of voluntary retirement under OSR 1979/1982.
Further , it is admitted by IBA in its communication to DFS dated 06/08/2012 that there is no VRS scheme for Award Staff & it is truth that neither Bipartite nor Shastry Award {Service conditions of Award Staff} defines the word " Resignation" & still the 30 to 40 years of service of Award staff is fore-fitted merely they used the word " Resignation" ( that too at the advice of Management) at the time of their Exit from the banking Service.
Now, All UFBEU leaders are appealed ( Champions of Officers and Award Staff) to take care of Award staff where "VRS " Scheme is not framed & also of officers in Six Bank ( Vijaya Bank, Andhra Bank, Indian Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank & New Bank of India & one more Bank) where VRS scheme is not framed under OSR, & take up the issue with IBA.
Unquote
No comments:
Post a Comment