Bhuneshwar Mayaram Dongre S/o Late Maya Ram Dongre Aged About 62 Years R./o C/o v. 1. Bank Of Baroda Through Its Chairman And Managing Director And Ceo, Head Office
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:1907 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 12 of 2025 Bhuneshwar Mayaram Dongre S/o Late Maya Ram Dongre Aged About 62 Years R./o C/o Hiralal Sinha Plot No. 15, Street No. 6, Near Atal Awas, New Adarsh Nagar, Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Bank Of Baroda Through Its Chairman And Managing Director And Ceo, Head Office, Baroda Bhawan, 7th Floor, R.C. Dutt Road, Vadodara-390007 2. The Trustee Bank Of Baroda Pension Fund And Trust Baroda Bhawan , 7th Floor R.C.Dutt Road, Vadodara-390007 3. The Zonal Manager Zonal Office, Bank Of Baroda , Samta Colony, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Regional Manager Regional Office, Raipur, Bank Of Baroda Jeevan Prakash Building Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandri, (C.G.) (Note- The Petitioner Was Originally Employee Of Dena Bank, Which Was Merged In The Bank Of Baroda As Per The Scheme Of The Government Of India Published In The Gazette Dated 02.01.2019,hence Bank Of Baroda Has Been Made Party In This Writ Petition, Accordingly) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
provides for payment of superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise. The Bipartite Settlement tends to provide a punishment which gives superannuation benefits otherwise due. The construction canvassed by the employer shall give nothing to the employees in any event. Will it not be a fraud Bipartite Settlement? Obviously it would be. From the conspectus of what we have observed we have no doubt that such of the employees who are otherwise eligible for superannuation benefit are removed from service in terms of clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement shall be entitled to superannuation benefits. This is the only construction which would harmonise the two provisions. It is well settled rule of construction that in case of apparent conflict between the two provisions, they should be so interpreted that the effect is given to both. Hence, we are of the opinion that such of the employees who are otherwise entitled to superannuation benefits under the Regulation if visited with the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits shall be entitled for those benefits and such of the employees though visited with the same penalty but are not eligible for superannuation benefits under the Regulation shall not be entitled to that. In the case of S.K. Kool (supra), the employee therein was removed from service with superannuation benefits, therefore, on that premise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court extended the benefit of Clause 6(b) of the Bi-partite Settlement but in the present case, the services of the petitioner were dismissed, therefore, the facts of the present case are entirely different from that of S.K. Kool (supra). 9) In the matter of Shree Lal Meena (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed Regulation 22(1) of Regulations, 1995 in paras 30, 31 and 33 and in para 36 the delay has been discussed. It shall be apt to reproduce para 30,31, 33 and 36 of the aforementioned judgment:- 30. The last relevant aspect is that the 1995 Scheme provided in clause 22 as under: "22. Forfeiture of service Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination or compulsory retirement of an employee from the service of the Corporation or a Company shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service 6 and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits." 31. Thus, once again, there is this clause of forfeiture of service in case of resignation. 33. We, thus, notice that all that was opined by the three Judges' Bench in the aforesaid case was based on the definition of 'retirement' as per the Retiring Gratuity Rules, 1937, which was expansive and all inclusive, excluding only the removal by discharge due to misconduct. Thus, nothing more could have been read into this judgment. 36. We may also find that the appellant remained silent for years together and that this Court, taking a particular view subsequently, in Sheel Kumar Jain (supra), would not entitle stale claims to be raised on this behalf, like that of the appellant. In fact the appellant slept over the matter for almost a little over two years even after the pronouncement of the judgment. 10) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Shree Lal Meena (supra), in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out to direct the respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner. 11) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Ajinkya Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE
Arguments
: Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 13/01/2025 1) The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was working on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier at Narratola Branch of the respondent-Bank (then DENA Bank). A departmental inquiry was instituted against the petitioner and he was dismissed from service without notice vide order 2 dated 17.10.2000 passed by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which was dismissed by the departmental appellate authority vide order dated 17.04.2001. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred WPS No. 60/2004 before this Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2013. Aggrieved by the order passed in writ petition, the petitioner preferred WA/453/2013 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.08.2013. A Special Leave Petition was also preferred by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed vide order dated 18.07.2014. The petitioner has filed this petitioner after 11 years claiming a direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of the pensionary benefits as according to the Bi-partite Settlement, 2002 particularly Clause 6(b), the petitioner is entitled to get all superannuation benefits like pension, PF, gratuity etc. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was removed from service but there was no specific order with regard to superannuation benefits however the petitioner is entitled to receive all benefits. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bank of Baroda Versus S.K. Kool (D) Through LRs & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) SCC 715. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank submits that the petitioner was an employee of DENA Bank and in the present petition, he has sought relief from the Bank of Baroda, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. He further submits that according to the Bank of Baroda (Employees) Pension 3 Regulation, 1995, particularly, Regulation 22(1), “resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail for forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits”. He contends that the petitioner was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority and that order has been affirmed by the appellate authority also. He further contends that this matter has travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the SLP preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed. He argues that the petitioner has approached this Court after a lapse of 11 long years without explaining the delay and he is not entitled to pensionary benefits, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Senior Division Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Versus Shree Lal Meena reported in 2019 (4) SCC 479. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents/material available on the record. 5) Evidently, the petitioner who was working in the post of Clerk-cum- Cashier at Narratola Branch of respondent-Bank (then DENA Bank) was dismissed from service vide order dated 17.10.2000 passed by the Assistant General Manager/disciplinary authority. The Department Appeal, Writ Petition, Writ Appeal and SLP preferred by the petitioner were dismissed and thus, the order dated 17.10.2000 attained finality. 6) Excerpts of the order dated 17.10.2000 passed by the Disciplinary authority include “Dismissal from the service of the Bank without notice with immediate effect.” Regulation 22 of The Regulations, 1995 deals with forfeiture of service. Regulation 22(1) expressly states that 4 “resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail for forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits.” 7) The petitioner has placed reliance on the Bi-partite Settlement entered into between the Employees’ Union of Bank and the Bank and its Clause 6(b) states that “an employee if found guilty of gross misconduct may be removed with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment”. In the present case, the employer has already paid PF and gratuity to the petitioner. According to Clause 6(b) of the Settlement, 2002, if an employee has been removed from service with superannuation benefits, then such an employee would be entitled to get all benefits but in the present case, the services of the petitioner were dismissed, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, Clause 6(b) of the Agreement, 2002 would not attract. 8) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S.K. Kool (supra) in para 14 held as under:- 14. The Regulation does not entitle every employee to pensionary benefits. Its application and eligibility is provided under Chapter II of the Regulation whereas Chapter IV deals with qualifying service. An employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service and fulfils other conditions only can qualify for pension in terms of Article 14 of the Regulation. Therefore, the expression "as would be due otherwise" wouldmean only such employees who are eligible and have put in minimum number of years of service to qualify for pension. However, such of the employees who are not eligible and have not put in required number of years of qualifying service shall not be entitled to the superannuation benefit though removed from service in terms of clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement. Clause 6(b) came to be inserted as one of the punishments on account of the Bipartite Settlement. It 5