P.P. Chugh vs United Commercial Bank and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner had joined service of United Commercial Bank on June 12, 1971. After having put in about 23 years of service, he submitted a request for "voluntary retirement/submission of resignation" vide his letter dated April 6, 1994. A copy of this letter is at Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. The petitioner had inter alia stated that he was not keeping good health "for the last three years --- and as such was not in a position to discharge --official duties effectively.'' He, therefore requested the Zonal Manager to grant him "voluntary retirement from service/accept resignation." He further submitted that "all retirement benefits pension and other benefits as applicable" may be given.

The petitioner did not hear anything from the respondents in reply. Ultimately, on April 20, 1995, he requested the authorities to allow him to resume duty. The respondents did not send reply even to this letter. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition inter alia praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow him to join duty by treating him as having continued in service with all consequential benefits.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been inter alia stated that the petitioner had failed "to comply with the requisite conditions precedent for voluntary retirement as neither he submitted three months advance notice nor an undertaking that he will not take up any employment for a period of two years from the date of his claimed retirement without prior consent of the Bank." The respondents further state that the petitioner''s request "could at the best be treated as resignation from service.............. he is not entitled for any pensionary benefits in view of Regulation 22 .............." The respondents also state that "even if the application Annexure P/1 is assumed to be a request for voluntary retirement, yet the only consequence can be that the petitioner stood voluntarily retired from the service of the answering Bank with effect from 5.7.1994."

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. Katyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner had made a request for voluntary retirement. He had also sought his retiral benefits. According to the respondents themselves, the petitioner will be deemed to have been retired with effect from July 5, 1994. He was thereafter entitled to the retiral benefits. The action of the Bank in not granting him the retiral benefits is wholly arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner be granted his retiral benefits with interest at the rate of 18 per cent.

The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents.

A perusal of the letter dated April 6, 1994, submitted by the petitioner clearly shows that he had sought voluntary retirement/permission to resign with the condition that he will be given all retiral benefits like pension etc. Consequently, it is clear that the petitioner had not at any stage given up or relinquished his claim to the retiral benefits. On the respondents'' own showing, the petitioner "stood voluntarily retired from the service of the........... with effect from 5.7.1994." That being so, there is no explanation whatsoever for the failure of the respondent Bank to release the retiral benefits as due to the petitioner.

On behalf of the Bank, it has been contended that the petitioner had resigned and was, therefore, not entitled to the grant of any retiral benefits. Such a contention is wholly misconceived. Firstly, the petitioner had specifically stated that he would be'' entitled to all the retiral benefits like pension etc. Secondly, the respondent Bank! has not accepted the petitioner''s so called request for resigning from service at any stage. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the Bank has ever treated the petitioner''s request as one for resigning from the job. In fact, there is nothing on the record to show that it was ever accepted. In such a situation, the claim of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of retiral benefits or that he had forfeited the benefits of service cannot be sustained. In fact, if the Bank were to take such a position, it will be wholly arbitrary and unfair. The petitioner had admittedly served the Bank for about 23 years. There would be no ground to deny him all the service benefits.

No other point has been urged.

In view of the above, it is held that the petitioner shall be deemed to have retired on July 5, 1994. All the retiral benefits shall be released to him within a period of three months from the dale of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent on all the benefits. In case the respondent Bank fails to release the benefits within the aforesaid period, the petitioner shall be entitled to the payment of interest at the rate of 18 per cent. The amount which may become due as interest shall be recoverable from the person who withholds the payment. The petitioner shall also be entitled to his costs which are assessed at Rs. 5000/-.