Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4489 OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.23505 of 2017]

NARENDRA KUMAR  ……APPELLANT  

VERSUS

CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SYNDICATE BANK & ORS. ….RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant joined the services of Syndicate Bank, respondent No.1,

as  a  Law Officer  in  the year 1979.   He went  on deputation  to  the Debt

Recovery  Tribunal,  Allahabad  as  Secretary/Registrar  for  a  period  of  three

years from 25.3.1996 which period was extended by one year when he was

posted  in  that  capacity  in  Allahabad.   The  appellant  was  thereafter

repatriated to the parent department of the respondent after four years.

1

3. The appellant was again sent on deputation as Secretary/Registrar of

the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad for one year 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 the Chairperson writing a letter to the

Executive Director of the Syndicate Bank, by a notification dated 10.2.2005,

the appellant was granted further extension of six months upto 28.5.2005.

4. On 26.6.2005, an advertisement was published notifying vacancies for

the post of Presiding Officer at Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow for which

post the appellant applied on 12.4.2005 during his period of deputation.  The

deputation was soon thereafter further extended upto 28.11.2005.  Ministry

of  Finance,  Union  of  India,  respondent  No.4  addressed  a  letter  dated

2.8.2005  to  respondent  No.1  requesting  to  forward  a  ‘No  Objection

Certificate’ for consideration of the appellant for the post of Presiding Officer

in  the  Debt  Recovery  Tribunal,  Lucknow  and  the  said  ‘No  Objection

Certificate’ was issued by the respondent No.1 on 24.8.2005.  In view of this

development, the appellant requested the respondent Bank on 6.10.2005 for

an extension of the period of deputation for a period of one year but the

same elicited no response from the Bank.   On 22.10.2005,  the appellant

appeared  for  interaction  before  the  Selection  Committee  chaired  by  an

Hon’ble Judge of this Court in pursuance of the letter addressed to him on

2

10.10.2005.   The  Chairperson  of  Debt  Recovery  Tribunal,  Allahabad  also

requested the Union of India for extension of the appellant on deputation on

18.11.2005  in  view  of  this  development  and  ultimately  the  period  of

deputation  was  extended  with  retrospective  effect  from  29.11.2005  to

28.5.2006 vide notification dated 1.12.2005.

5. The  appellant  was  selected  for  the  post  of  Presiding  Officer,  Debt

Recovery Tribunal,  Lucknow and the appointment letter  dated 20.01.2006

was issued and addressed to the Chairman and Managing Director of the

respondent  No.1  Bank  with  a  copy  endorsed  to  the  appellant  and  the

Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad.  In terms of

this  appointment  letter,  the  appellant  was  called  upon  to  take  over  the

charge as a Presiding Officer within one month from the date of issue of the

letter.   The appellant,  thus, wrote to respondent No.1 Bank on 25.1.2006

requesting for permission to take over the charge of the said new post.  No

response  was  sent  by  the  Bank  to  this  letter.   The  Chairperson,  Debt

Recovery  Appellate  Tribunal  released the appellant  on  27.1.2006 and the

appellant thereafter took over the charge of the post of Presiding Officer.  A

notification dated 9.2.2006 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.

30.1.2006 or  till  he attained the age of  62 years with a copy marked to

respondent No.1 Bank.

3

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 respect of the

said appointment, which reads as under:

“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 the Presiding Officer at DRT, Lucknow.  As per the terms of your said appointment, you are governed by the Terms and Conditions,  as stipulated in  Debts  Recovery Tribunal (Salaries,  Allowance  and  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, on 29.11.2001 and the term was extended by the Board of the Bank upto 29.11.2005, as a very special case.  As you have  joined  DRT,  Lucknow,  after  relief  from  DRAT, Allahabad, without our consent and without seeking relief from the  service  of  the  Bank,  consequent  to  your  fresh appointment, the Competent Authority has directed us to seek  your  retirement  from  the  Bank’s  service.   Please forward your application immediately.”

7. The appellant responded to this letter on 12.1.2007 stating that he was

submitting an application for retirement for which approval from respondent

No.4 was required for which he addressed a letter of even date. However, the

respondent No.1 Bank on 19.2.2007 called upon the appellant to resign from

the service of the Bank as he had taken over as Presiding officer of the Debt

Recovery Tribunal.  Some communication in this behalf was exchanged but,

suffice to say that, ultimately the appellant resigned and that resignation

was accepted by the respondent No.1 Bank vide letter dated 10.3.2008.  The

said  letter  informed  the  appellant  that  he  was  being  relieved  from  the

4

services of the Bank by acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement

with immediate effect.  However, the dispute which forms the subject matter

of the present proceedings arose from the latter part  of  this  letter which

reads as under:

“Please note that though you have opted for Pension under Syndicate Bank Employees Pension Regulations 1995, you are not 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 interruption in  the service  of  the Bank employee entails forfeiture of his past service”.  You were relieved from DRAT on 27.01.2006 and you should  have joined our  services immediately  thereafter,  but  you  have  failed  to  do  so. Instead of joining the Bank and getting relieved from the services  of  the  Bank,  you  had  directly  joined  Debt Recoveries Tribunal, Lucknow, violating laid down norms of Service Conditions applicable to you in our Bank.  Hence, your  absence  from  28.01.2006  is  treated  as  willful abandonment of service/Unauthorised absence.

2. In terms of Clause No.29 of SBEPR-1995, “on or after 1st day of November 1993, at any time after an employee has completed 20 years of qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than 3 months in writing to the appointing authority retire from service. Whereas  as  stipulated  in  para  1,  without  any intimation/notice you have joined DRT, Lucknow and you did not get yourselves properly relieved from the services of  the  Bank  and  thereby  you  have  violated  Regulation No.29 of SBEPR-1995.”

8. On  6.5.2008,  the  appellant  was  informed  that  only  a  sum  of

Rs.2,41,800/- was payable to the appellant on the basis of the total period of

service of 18 years and 10 months.  Thus, effectively the respondent No.1

Bank forfeited the services of the appellant of 9 years and granted benefit of

5

gratuity  to  the  appellant  on  the  basis  of  18  years  of  service.   This  was

disputed by the appellant vide letter dated 10.7.2008 pointing out that his

service was of 29 years and 2 months as the period of deputation in the DRT

and DRAT was part of continuous service of the parent department for the

purpose of gratuity.  Pensionary benefits were requested vide letter dated

15.7.2008 but this did not invoke a positive response.  The appellant, thus,

addressed  a  letter  to  respondent  No.4  which  in  turn  addressed  the

communication to the Bank seeking a sympathetic consideration of the case

of  the  appellant.   But  ultimately  the  request  of  the  appellant  was  still

rejected by the respondent No.1 Bank vide a letter dated 31.5.2010.

9. The  appellant  filed  a  Writ  Petition  No.947(SB)/2010  before  the

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench making the following prayers:

“a. To issue a  writ,  order or  direction in  the nature of certiorari  thereby  quashing  the  impugned  order  dated 31.05.2010  and  dated  10.03.2008  as  contained  in Annexure-1 & Annexure-2 to the writ petition passed by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

b. To issue a  writ,  order or  direction in  the nature of mandamus  commanding  the  opposite  parties  1  &  2  to grant the pensionary benefit to the petitioner and pay the entire arrears to the petitioner with interest.”

Interim orders were granted in favour of the appellant on 15.7.2010 staying

the operation of the impugned orders dated 31.05.2010 and 10.03.2008.

10. The Bank  opposed the  writ  petition  and pleadings were  completed.

Some supplementary affidavits were also filed and, alongwith the same, the

6

appellant filed a letter dated 25.7.2013 addressed by the respondent No.4 to

respondent No.1 Bank obtained through RTI, the relevant portion of which is

extracted hereunder:

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

It  may also  be observed that  during the complete correspondence  between  Ministry  &  Bank  there  was  no indication about  treatment of  service of  Shri  Kumar & it was  on  directions  of  the  bank  that  Shri  Kumar  took retirement  from service  of  bank.   Thus,  action of  the bank in treating the service of Shri Kumar from Jan 2006 to date of retirement as unauthorized absence and denial of pensionary benefits does not appear appropriate.”  

[emphasis supplied]

The  communication  addressed  by  respondent  No.4  to  respondent  No.1,

however, did not invoke any response.

11. The writ petition was heard and dismissed on 31.3.2017 by the Division

Bench.  It is this order which is sought to be assailed in the present appeal.

The impugned order records that the appellant was not granted pension in

view of the alleged non-compliance of Clause 22(2) of the Syndicate Bank

Employees’  Pension Regulations,  1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Pension

7

Regulations’)  as he was required to join back the service of  the bank on

being relieved from the DRT on 27.1.2006 but he straight away joined the

post of the Presiding Officer of the DRT, Lucknow.  The period from 28.1.2006

was treated as willful abandonment of service.  The relevant extract of the

Pension Regulations reads as under:

“22. Forfeiture of Service:-

(1) …………

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

12. The  impugned  order  recognizes  that  ‘No  Objection  Certificate’  to

participate in the selection process had been obtained by the appellant but

the  fact  that  he  joined  the  post  of  the  Presiding  Officer,  DRT  without

reporting to his parent department was considered fatal.  The conduct of the

appellant was held to be treated as abandonment of bank service.

13. We have examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for

the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 in the contours of the

aforesaid  factual  position.   In  our  view,  the  impugned  decisions  of  the

respondent No.1 Bank are wholly unjustified and unsustainable in law even

as per the Pension Regulations.

14. The appellant was on deputation from time to time.  Before applying

for the post of Presiding officer, DRT, a ‘No Objection Certificate’ had been

8

obtained from the respondent No.1 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.  It is during the

extended period that the appellant was issued the appointment letter  on

20.1.2006.  To say the least,  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 on 25.1.2006 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 as stated aforesaid from the date of issue of

letter dated 20.1.2006.  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.

15. Now, turning even to the so called technicality of the appellant based

on  Clause  22(2)  of  the  Pension  Regulations,  the  same  requires  any

interruption in service of  a Bank employee to entail  forfeiture of  his past

service.   In  our  view,  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

9

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.1 Bank on 25.1.2006 which

elicited no response for 11 months.   We may also add that even the Ministry

of  Finance,  the  parent  Ministry  of  respondent  No.1  Bank,  brought  to  the

notice of the Bank the inappropriateness of not extending the benefits by

commenting, as extracted aforesaid.  It has been noted that there was no

communication  from  the  Bank  after  issue  of  appointment  letter  dated

20.1.2006 and notification dated 9.2.2006 till the matter was raised with the

Ministry for the first time by the Bank after a gap of more than 6 months on

17.7.2006.   

16. It is unfortunate that such a stand was sought to be taken by the Bank

resting on unjustified ego of  someone,  causing immense suffering to  the

appellant.  We are, thus, of the view that the impugned orders in the Writ

Petition No.947(SB)/2010 and orders issued by respondent  No.1 Bank are

unsustainable and are, accordingly, quashed.  The Writ Petition filed by the

appellant before the High Court is liable to be allowed and the impugned

order of the Division Bench set aside.  Appeal is allowed.

17. We also consider it appropriate to impose costs on the respondent No.1

Bank,  in   view   of   what   we  have  discussed  aforesaid,  quantified  at

Rs.25,000/-.  The  amount  due  to  the  appellant  alongwith  interest,  as  per

10

norms, and the cost imposed be remitted to the appellant by Respondent

No.1 within a maximum period of 2 months from today.

………………………….........……..  [S.A. BOBDE]  

……..……………………………….J.                                                                             [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]

……..……………………………….J.                                   [INDIRA BANERJEE]

NEW DELHI. APRIL 30, 2019

11