AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus or any other direction declaring the action of the respondent bank stipulating a condition in the proceedings Ref.GR:O:306112:2018-19, dt.29.06.2018 that the petitioner is not entitled for commutation of provisional pension as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner dt.11.07.2019, 28.02.2020, 03.09.2021 and 08.09.2021 and to permit the petitioner for commutation of pension as per Regulation 47 of the Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner joined the respondent bank as a Probationary Officer in the year 1985 and thereafter, he was promoted to various posts including to the posts of Field Officer, Bank Manager, etc. He retired from service with effect from 30.06.2018 in the capacity of Senior Manager Scale-III. The petitioner was, however, not permitted to commute his pension and the petitioner was being paid only provisional pension. Therefore, the petitioner made several representations for the same, but since the same have not been considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was permitted to retire with effect from 30.06.2018 and there was also a ‘No Due Certificate’ issued by the bank on 21.11.2015. It is submitted that while the petitioner was in service, there were certain allegations made against the petitioner and the bank had filed a complaint to the CBI dt.03.09.2012 against certain borrowers and the CBI had registered Crime No.Rc.14(E)/2012/CBI/EOW/CHENNAI and the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.7 therein. The same is registered as C.C.No.16 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Nampally, Hyderabad. He submitted that on the ground that the said C.C. is pending against the petitioner, the petitioner was not being permitted to commute a portion of the pension and the petitioner is being paid only provisional pension. He submitted that in the said proceedings even the gratuity was withheld. Therefore, the petitioner had approached the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the petitioner was allowed payment of gratuity along with interest @ 10% per annum from the due dates. Since the petitioner was not being permitted to commute the pension but is being paid only the provisional pension, he filed the present Writ Petition.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that grant of pension to bank employees is governed by Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 and Regulation 28 contemplates classes of pensions, while Regulation 35 contemplates rate of pension. It is submitted that Regulation 41 contemplates commutation of pension which shows that an employee shall be entitled to commute for a lump sum payment of a fraction of his pension not exceeding 1/3rd and Regulation 42 contemplates that the pension sanctioned would be subject to future good conduct and Regulation 43 contemplates to withhold or withdraw the pension. It is submitted that Regulation 43 prescribes that the competent authority may, by an order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period, if a pensioner is convicted for a serious crime or criminal breach of trust or forgery or acting fraudulently or he is found guilty of misconduct and the Proviso to the said Regulation stipulates that part of the pension that is withheld shall not be reduced below minimum pension per month under the Regulations. It is submitted that Regulation 44 relates to the effect of conviction by the Court and if a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime, action will be taken in the light of the judgment of the Court and therefore, under Regulations 43 and 44, a discretion is vested in the bank to take appropriate action in relation to the withdrawal or withholding of the pension in relation to a conviction pertaining to a serious crime. It is submitted that in the case of the petitioner, there is a crime registered against the petitioner, but the petitioner has not been convicted and therefore, the respondents ought not to have withheld the gratuity and also ought to have permitted the petitioner to commute a fraction of the pension. He submitted that the respondents have not applied their mind to the provisions of law and are not permitting the petitioner to commute the pension. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent bank relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the Regulations of the bank govern pensions of the employees and the petitioner is one of the employees and it is submitted that serious offences were registered against the petitioner by the CBI and the quash petitions filed by Accused Nos.1 to 5 have been dismissed by this Court and in the Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide orders dt.11.05.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed further criminal proceedings in C.C.No.16 of 2014 and therefore, further proceedings are not carried on. It is submitted that since judicial proceedings are pending against the petitioner, there is a possibility of conviction of the petitioner in the Criminal Case when the interim stay granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is vacated and that the respondent bank is paying provisional pension to the petitioner. It is submitted that the bank is paying full pension as provisional pension to the petitioner herein and that the settlement of final pensionary benefits is dependent on the outcome of the CBI case as per the Pension Regulations. The learned Standing Counsel referred to Regulations 46 and 47 of the Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. Regulation 46 prescribes that an employee who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued, a provisional pension, equal to the maximum pension which would have been admitted to him, would be allowed subject to adjustment against final retirement benefits sanctioned to him, upon conclusion of the proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld etc., either permanently or for a specified period. Regulation 47 prescribes that an employee against whom departmental or judicial proceedings have been instituted before the date of his retirement or a person against whom such proceedings are instituted after the date of retirement shall not be eligible to commute a fraction of his provisional pension, or pension, as the case may be, authorized under these Regulations during the pendency of such proceedings and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled for commutation of pension.
Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the undisputed facts are that the petitioner was allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018 and a ‘No Due Certificate’ has also been given by the respondent bank to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that a CBI case has been registered against the petitioner and judicial proceedings are still pending before the trial Court and due to the stay granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the proceedings are stayed for the time being. In such circumstances, Regulation 47 of the Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations would be attracted which clearly prescribed that where judicial proceedings are pending against an employee, the bank authorities are not permitted to allow such an employee to commute a fraction of his provisional pension or pension, as the case may be. When there is a clear negative embargo on permitting an employee to commute a fraction of his provisional pension or pension, as the case may be, the bank authorities are clearly not in a position to even consider the representations of the petitioner for commutation of pension and payment of final pension. Admittedly, the petitioner is being paid full pension as provisional pension and therefore, the petitioner can have no objection to the same. As the Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations do not permit commutation of pension by the petitioner or even a fraction of his provisional pension, this Court does not find any merit in this Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However, after culmination of the criminal proceedings, the petitioner may approach the authorities for commutation of his pension in accordance with rules/regulations.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall also stand dismissed.