MAHESH R THAKORE Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(GJH)-2013-3-260
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on March 08,2013

Mahesh R Thakore Appellant
VERSUS
UNION BANK OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)HEARD Mr. Rajesh P. Mankad, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Varun K. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent Bank. By way of this petition, the petitioner claims pension from the respondent Bank.
(2.)THE facts as emerge from record are as under.
2.2 The petitioner was in service of the respondent Bank. The Bank passed an order on 17.03.1986 inflicting penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner, following a domestic inquiry. 2.3 The said action of the respondent Bank is not the subject matter of this petition. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court. Challenge to the said order before this Court was rejected, however, ultimately, Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2029 of 1990 (SLP No.12362 of 1988) on 23.04.1990, after hearing the Bank, passed the following order: "Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and having heard counsel for the respondents, it is directed that the appellant's termination of service is set aside and the respondents will permit the appellant to retire voluntarily with all retiral benefits for which he is entitled to according to law from the bank from the date of his voluntary retirement." 2.4 Thus the petitioner stood voluntarily retired from the service of the respondent Bank with effect from 17.03.1986.

Learned advocate for the petitioner stated that in the Nationalized Banks, including the respondent Bank, the pension scheme came to be introduced in the year 1995. The said pension scheme is made effective from 01.01.1986. It is stated that those who opt for voluntary retirement are entitled to pension. It is further contended that those who had retired voluntarily after 01.01.1986 were also treated to be entitled to claim pension. It is stated that in view of the order of Honourable the Supreme Court of India, the date of voluntary retirement of the petitioner is 17.03.1986. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to pension and denial by the respondent Bank is illegal and arbitrary. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of this Court recorded on Special Civil Application No.2738 of 2001. It is stated that, in the said petition, in almost identical circumstances, against the respondent Bank itself, this Court had given directions and similar directions be issued in the present case as well.

(3.)ON the other hand learned advocate Mr.Patel for the respondent Bank vehemently contended that the voluntary retirement of the petitioner was not under the normal rules of the respondent Bank and therefore he is not entitled to pension. He has also relied on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent Bank. It is further contended that the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.2738 of 2001 was in the facts of that case and therefore the same will not have any applicability in the facts of this case.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.