SCA/8922/2008 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8922 of 2008 ========================================================= JAGSINGH RAWATSINGH RAJPUT - Petitioner(s) Versus BANK OF BARODA & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR YATIN OZA, Sr. Advocate with MS SRUSHTI A THULA for Petitioner(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. MR DARSHAN M PARIKH for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 30/03/2010 ORAL ORDER
1. The
petitioner had earlier preferred a petition being S.C.A.
No.15364/2006 before this Court. The said petition came to be
disposed of vide judgment and order dated 08.09.2006, which reads as
under;
RULE
returnable today. Mr.Parikh waives service of rule.
With
the consent of the learned advocates, the matter is heard and
disposed of today.
The
petitioner is a retired employee of the respondent Bank of Baroda
(hereinafter referred to as, the Bank ).
At the relevant time, the petitioner was serving as a Clerk in Kali
Branch, Ahmedabad of the Bank. For the acts of alleged misconduct a
disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. By
order dated 29 th
October, 2003 he was ordered to be compulsorily retired from service.
The said order of compulsory retirement has become final. It is now
the claim of the petitioner that in view of his retirement from
service he is entitled to pension.
Whereas the Bank has disputed his claim. According to the Bank, the
petitioner having been retired from service as a penal measure, he is
not entitled to pension.
Mr.Mishra
has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of
Kanaiyalal Kantilal Brahmbhatt v/s. Bank of Baroda (Special
Civil Application No.7671 of 2005 decided on 1st
September, 2006; Coram: Akil Kureshi, J.). He has submitted that this
Court has interpreted the relevant regulations of the Bank and has
held that the delinquent servants who are compulsorily retired also
are entitled to pension.
Mr.Parikh
has submitted that the employees of the Bank are entitled to pension
under the Bank of Baroda (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995.
Regulation 33 of the said Regulations confers discretion upon the
Bank whether or not to allow pension in case of compulsory
retirement. He has submitted that this Court has, in the above matter
of Kanaiyalal Kantilal Brahmbhatt, committed error in interpreting
the aforesaid Regulation 33. The matter, therefore, requires to be
referred to the Larger Bench.
I
am unable to agree with Mr.Parikh. Considering Regulation 33 read
with Regulation 22 of the said Regulations, this Court has held that
the only discretion left under Regulation 33 is whether to grant 100
per cent pension or to reduce it to not less than 2/3rd of
the full pension admissible to the delinquent servant. I am in
agreement with the learned Judge. No case for reference to the Larger
Bench has been made out.
In
above view of the matter, the petition is allowed. It is declared
that the petitioner is, inspite of his compulsory retirement from
service, entitled to receive pension. It is directed that the Bank
shall, within ten weeks from today, consider the case of the
petitioner for grant of full pension or to exercise discretionary
power under the aforesaid Regulation 33. The arrears of pension shall
be paid on or before 30th November, 2006. Rule is made
absolute in the above terms. The parties shall bear their own cost.
2. However,
today, learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Oza requests for some in order to get
some clarification from the Court which has passed the above-said
order. Hence, S.O to 06.05.2010. It is, however,
observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to proceed with the
matter on merits on the next date if, ultimately, he is not going for
review of the said order.
[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]
Pravin/*