Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/402920/2008 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4029 of 2008
=========================================================
T.M.
SOLANKI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
BANK OF INDIA & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NILESH A PANDYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR PRANAV G DESAI for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 10/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1.0. The
petitioner, by way of this petition, has prayed for the following
reliefs.
(A) This Hon’ble Court
would be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order
or direction, directing the respondents, their agents and servants to
sanction the pension to the petitioner from the date of discharge
i.e. 21.3.1996 and to pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner
from 30.3.1996 and continued to pay monthly pension as per the scheme
of the respondent Bank.
(B) This Hon’ble Court
would be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order
or direction, directing the respondents to pay leave encashment
created/accrued/earned upto 30.3.1996 by the petitioner.
(C ) During the pendency
hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court be
pleased to sanction the pensionary benefit and pay monthly pension to
the petitioner regularly.
(D) Any other and further
reliefs as deemed just and proper looking to the facts of this case,
may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner in the interest of
justice.??
2.0. The
short facts of the case are :-
2.1. On
20th October, 1978 the petitioner was appointed by the
respondent Bank as Clerk-Typist-Cashier. On account of certain
irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, the
petitioner was discharged from service with immediate effect. Against
the said decision, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
appellate authority. The appellate authority, after hearing the
parties and after considering the evidence on record, allowed the
appeal vide order dated 14th March, 1995.
2.2. It
is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the order passed by
the appellate authority, he was taken back in the service. However,
subsequently a suspension order was passed by the respondent-Bank.
Thereafter a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and
departmental inquiry was initiated. After completion of departmental
inquiry, punishment of discharge from service with superannuation
benefit was imposed upon him.
2.3. Being
aggrieved by the decision of the disciplinary authority, the
petitioner again preferred an appeal before the appellate authority,
which was dismissed. The petitioner, therefore, raised an industrial
dispute before the Labour Court Vadodara. The Labour Court after
hearing the parties, allowed the reference and directed the
respondent-Bank to reinstate the petitioner in service on his
original post, without any back wages.
2.4. Against
the said order of the Labour Court, the respondent-Bank approached
this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 8943 of 2000
whereby the Court has allowed the petition and set aside the order
passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara. Being aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioner had preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before
this Court, which is pending. It is the case of the petitioner that
so far the respondent-Bank has not released the superannuation
benefits, though the petitioner is entitled for all the same.
Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by
way of this petition.
3.0. Heard
learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has tried to explain
the delay by submitting a writ petition preferred by the State Bank
of India against the order of the Labour Court, Vadodara, which was
disposed of by judgment and order dated 25th July, 2007
passed in Special Civil Application No. 8493 of 2000, against which
Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the petitioner, which is still
pending for consideration. The petitioner’ s cause of action has
started from 25th July, 2007 and this petition is moved on
24th January, 2008. However, the relief claimed in this
petition is with regard to grant of pension from the year 1996. In my
view, it is at belated stage and it would have been appropriate for
the petitioner to get the clarification at the time when Special
Civil Application filed by respondent-Bank was pending. However, no
such clarification was sought for. In that view of the matter, such
claim after a period of 12 years cannot be entertained and the order
passed in Special Civil Application No. 8493 of 2000 has achieved
finality.
3.1. However,
since Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending,
in my opinion, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to get
clarification from the Bench which is taking up the said Letters
Patent Appeal preferred against the order of learned Single Judge.
3.2. Considering
the facts of the case, it would be relevant to refer to the decision
of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Laxman Dundappa
Dhamanekar & Anr. v. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti &
Anr. Reported in (2001) 8 SCC pg.378,
wherein it has been held that claim made after a very long time, the
employee would not be entitled for the arrears of the entire period.
3.3. Thus, in view of the
above, and keeping in mind the principle laid down by the Apex Court
in the case of Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar & Anr. v. Management
of Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti & Anr. (Supra) I am of the
opinion, that the petition does not deserve to be entertained.
3.4. Even
otherwise, in the reply filed by the respondent, it is stated that
as per the Rules of the Bank, a member is entitled to Pension if he
has completed 20 years of service and provided that he has attained
the age of 50 years. In the present case, the date on which the
petitioner was discharged from the service, he had completed 45 years
only. Hence, as per the Pension Rules the petitioner is not entitled
to any pension.
4.0. In
the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in the petition. The
same is accordingly rejected. Notice is discharged. No order as to
costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top