AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.G. Ramesh, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the endorsement dated 08.11.2013 at Annexure-G. In the said endorsement, the respondent-Canara Bank has referred to its previous endorsement dated 15.10.2013 and has accordingly rejected the petitioner''s representation dated 21.10.2013. The previous endorsement dated 15.10.2013 which is at Annexure-E reads as follows: In this regard we wish to reiterate that since your exit from the Bank is by way of punishment of "Dismissal", as per douse 22(1) of the Canara Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995 you are not eligible for pension.
In my opinion, rejection of the claim of the petitioner for pension is in accordance with the pension regulations of the bank referred to above. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court dated 14th August 2013 in State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6770 of 2013) in support of the writ petition. It has no application to the facts of the present case. As could be seen from para 2 of the said judgment, the question that fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was as to whether in the absence of any provision in the pension rules, the State Government can withhold a part of pension and/or gratuity during the pendency of departmental/criminal proceedings. That is not the question in the present case. In the present case, the petitioner was dismissed from service and hence under the Regulations of the Bank referred to above, he is not eligible for pension and accordingly the claim for pension is rightly rejected. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.