Supreme Court Quashes Bank’s Denial of Pension Benefits to Retired Officer

The case of Narendra Kumar v. Chairman and Managing Director, Syndicate Bank & Ors. dealt with the wrongful denial of pension benefits to a retired bank officer. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, quashing the orders that denied him his pensionary benefits. The Court found that the bank’s actions were unjustified and imposed a cost on the bank for causing undue hardship to the appellant.

The judgment clarifies the legal principles surrounding pension entitlements, employment termination procedures, and the responsibilities of public sector banks in dealing with retired employees.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Narendra Kumar, joined Syndicate Bank as a Law Officer in 1979. Over the years, he was deputed multiple times to serve as Secretary/Registrar at the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and later at the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). His deputation period was extended multiple times until he was appointed as the Presiding Officer at the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow, in 2006.

Upon his appointment, he requested permission from his parent bank (Syndicate Bank) to take charge of his new post. The bank did not respond for 11 months. Subsequently, he joined the DRT without formal reliving orders from the bank. The bank later claimed that he had abandoned service and denied him pensionary benefits.

After multiple communications with the bank and the Ministry of Finance, the bank refused to grant him pension, stating that he had willfully abandoned his service by not formally resigning before joining the DRT. Aggrieved, he approached the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed his petition. He then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

Whether the appellant had abandoned his service with the bank.
Whether the bank was justified in denying pensionary benefits under the Syndicate Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995.
Whether the appellant was entitled to pension despite not officially resigning before joining the DRT.

Arguments by the Appellant (Narendra Kumar)

He was on deputation when he was appointed as Presiding Officer of the DRT.
He had obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the bank before applying for the post.
He had informed the bank in writing about his appointment and sought permission to join the DRT.
The bank remained silent for 11 months and later accused him of abandoning service.
The Ministry of Finance had acknowledged that denying him pension was inappropriate.

Arguments by the Respondents (Syndicate Bank)

The appellant did not formally resign before joining the DRT.
He failed to report back to the bank after his deputation ended.
Under Clause 22(2) of the Pension Regulations, an interruption in service results in forfeiture of past service.
The bank treated his non-reporting as abandonment of service.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the facts and legal provisions surrounding pension eligibility and service continuity.

Key observations:

The appellant was on deputation when he was appointed as Presiding Officer, DRT.
He obtained an NOC and was cleared by the bank before applying for the post.
The bank’s claim that he had abandoned service was hyper-technical and unjustified.
Clause 22(2) of the Pension Regulations does not apply in this case as there was no real interruption in service.
The Ministry of Finance had intervened in favor of the appellant, but the bank disregarded its recommendation.

Key Judgment Excerpt:

“To say the least, it is a hyper-technical view to take that the appellant ought to have joined the respondent No.1 Bank for a couple of days, got himself relieved and then joined the office of the Presiding Officer, DRT. It, thus, appears to be more of an ego issue rather than any case of service impropriety or illegality.”

The Court ruled that the bank’s denial of pension was illegal and arbitrary. It quashed the impugned orders and directed the bank to grant the appellant his pension benefits with applicable interest. Additionally, the bank was ordered to pay Rs. 25,000 as costs.

Conclusion

This judgment reaffirms that pension is a statutory right and cannot be denied on technical grounds. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that employees who transition to government-appointed posts from deputation are not penalized unfairly. The decision upholds the principles of fairness and accountability in employment matters.

Petitioner Name: Narendra Kumar.
Respondent Name: Chairman and Managing Director, Syndicate Bank & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Indira Banerjee.
Place Of Incident: Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 30-04-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Narendra Kumar vs Chairman and Managin Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 30-04-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by S. A. Bobde
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category