Bank of India & another vs Akhil Chandra Gawkwad & others

By filing this review petition, the petitioner/employer has prayed for reviewing the order dated 10.03.2017, passed in W.P. No.14623/2010.

Mr. Shroti, learned senior counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that although the said order dated 10.03.2017 is passed on the basis

of consensus arrived at, but its a case where wrong consent has been given by the counsel appearing for the Bank. Mr. Shroti submits that for

three reasons it will be clear that consent was wrongly given. Firstly, the original petitioner relied on the offending clause of circular dated

24.08.2010. As per the joint note (Page No.35), the cases of compulsory retirement (as a measure of punishment) are not covered. Secondly, the

IBA circular dated 10.08.2010 is silent on the entitlement of former employees who stood retired on compulsory basis as a measure of

punishment. Thirdly, attention is drawn on the circular dated 24.08.2010 (Clause 3) which in clear terms excludes certain employees who have

tendered resignation, opted for voluntary retirement or the cases of cessation of service on other grounds. Mr. Shroti further submits that in view of

these circulars, the question of granting similar benefit to original petitioners did not arise. Reliance is placed on para 5.3, 5.5 & 5.6 of the writ

petition, wherein original petitioners have disclosed that the pension scheme was well within their knowledge, but due to alleged ill advice, they

opted for CPF scheme. They did not prefer any option within reasonable time and therefore benefit of the judgment of this Court passed in the

case of Ashwani Kumar Sharma vs. Punjab National Bank [W.P. No.7993/2012] cannot be extended in their favour.

Per-contra, Mr. Choubey, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 contended that the present respondents are similarly situated qua

Ashwani Kumar Sharma (supra) and therefore, consent was rightly given and there exits no distinguishing features.

No other point is pressed by the parties.

I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

A plain reading of order of this Court passed in Ashwani Kumar Sharma (Supra) shows that this Court has considered catena of judgments

passed by various High Courts and even highlighted the relevant portion of the said judgment and reproduced it in the body of the order dated

10.03.2017. This Court laid emphasis on the finding- ""evidently, respondents cannot discriminate one such set of retirees on penalty of compulsory

retirement from the other set of retirees"" (Page 49). This highlighted portion is part of the judgment which was upheld by the Division Bench of

Andra Pradesh High Court by passing reasoned judgment. The employer unsuccessfully assailed the said order passed by writ court and writ

appellate court (AP) before the Supreme Court. The SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court. On this basis, in Ashwani Kumar Sharma (Supra)

this Court decided to extend the benefit of parity and pertinently, the order of this Court got a stamp of approval by the Division Bench of this

Court in W.A. No.252/2016 (Annexure-RP/5). The SLP of employer was dismissed in limine on 30.08.2016 (Annexure-RP/6). The above

circulars on which reliance is placed by learned senior counsel were subject matter of consideration by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and by this

Court. This is not in dispute that circular issued by Indian Bank''s Association (IBA) will be applicable on all the Banks. While considering the

similar circulars, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, as noticed, opined that the petitioner cannot be given a step-motherly treatment because similar

set of retirees on penalty of compulsory retirement were extended with the same benefits. Thus, I find no reason to hold that consent was wrongly

given. The employer is unable to show that original petitioner''s cases were distinguishable. Thus, I find no reason to deprive the original petitioners

from the principles laid down in the case of Ashwani Kumar Sharma (Supra) and other cases decided by different High Courts. It goes without

saying that in absence of any error apparent on the face of record, I am not inclined to review the order dated 10.03.2017. Accordingly, review

petition fails and is hereby dismissed.