Seri Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No.3 and 4 to settle the arrears of the Petitioner towards difference of pay revision, service increments, D A arrears and other benefits, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. M A K MUKHEED Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI V. RAJA SHEKAR REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT ,=7 HON'BLI] SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAIT SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT APPEAL NO.872 OF 2024 IUDGMENT: fii r Hor'bk Sri lusticc Latrui Narnynna Alishetty) This Writ ,,\ppea I is f iled aggrier.ecl by the- order passed by the learned single JLrdge ol' tl'ris Court in W.P No.6112 of 2023, dated

03.06.2024

2. Hearcl Sri M. A. K. Mu khec.cl, learrred counsc'l for appellant, learned Governnrent Plt acler appearing for responder-rt Nos.l to 3 and Sri V.Raja Shekar liecldy lean-rc'd counsel for responclent No.4 3 The facts t,[ ihe case, irr nutshell, arc that appe[ant joined as Junior Assistant in 4th res porrclcn t- I3ank in the rnonth of November, 1984 vide appointment orrlcr dtrtccl 24.11.1984 anci later he was promoted as Assrstant r\ccountant in Auliust, 1994. According to the appellant, his dak, of birth is 06.10. 1965, that clue to his health condition and family c ircut.r. s ta nct.s, he appliccl for voluntary retil.ement and filed an application before the respondent-Bank on 16.03.2022 rvith a request to consider his c.rse for volurrtarv retirel'nent under the Voiuntary Retirement Schenrr', 202 I (VRS) introduceci by the Govcrnment of Telangana. It is contenclerl that initiall.,', appellant appliecl for voluntary retirement on 21 .n9.2021, vvhcrein l-re statecl that duc to his health 'I 2 AAS,J & LA:A.J tt A.No 872 ol202J problems and family circumstances, his health did support him to do a full service and that left over service is due for 60 months and, therefore, he is entitled for voluntary retirement. However, the respondent-Bank did not take any action thereon Agu,r.r, appellant filed a fresh application on 16.03.2022, however, without considering the above aspects, respondent No.4-bank aide order dated 30.72.2022 rejected the voluntary retirement application of the appellant.

4. Aggrieved by the rejection order dated 30.12.2022, the appellant approached this Court by filing tV.P.No.6112 of 2023 and the learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition uide order dated 03.05.2024. Aggrieved bv the same, present writ appeal is filed.

5. I-earned counsel for the appellant had contended that learned single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the appellant rnade a representahon on 27.09.2027 and as on that date, appellant has more than five years of service antl he was eligible for VRS. He further contended that learned sirrgle Judge had only cqnsidered the representation dated 16.03.2022 of the appellant, which is the reminder of representation made on 21.09 -2027, to which an endorsement was made by the respondenlbank. He further contended that as per record, his retirement is due in September, 2O26, however, he is not getting any t \ 7 AKS,J & I,NA J tt'A.lio E7) of2024 salary SINCC Jarruary, 2022 nor the respondent-ba rrk paid servlce benefits to him arrci finally, prayed this Court to allow the writ appeal by setting aside th('ordcr of the learned singlc Juclge

6. Per contnr. Iearned counsel for the respondent No.4-bank submitted that no represcntation dated 2l .09.2021 was submitted by the appellant to the respondent-bank and the saicl representation filed in this appeal is a forged ancl fabricatecl one; that during the pendency of the writ petition. appellant rctired from sc.n,icc on 31.10.2023 and the contention of the appellant that his servict:s vvoulcl be completed in the month of August, 2026 is incorrect since the Managir-r11 Committee of the respondent-l.ank has not accepted thc rctirement date extension from 58 to 61 v,.'arrs. IIe further submittcd tl-rat prirrr. to 27.09.2021,, appellant absconded frorn his duties ancl ciefaulted in repayment of loan taken from the respondent-bank, which amounts kr financial indiscipline ancl also miscondr.rct; that appcllant alterecl his datc of birth in service re.gister to 06.10.1965 from 06.10.1963 af ter.foirring into service taking advantagc of his access to the service register without any authority, which.rrnounts to misconduct and chc'ating the respondent- bank. He furthr.r' sul'rmittccl that the learned sinl;le Judge on appreciation of th(,material placed on record has rightly dismissed the ,i. 4 AKS,J & I,AA,J l A ,fo 87) oJ )0)1 writ petition and that no groultds are madc out in the present appeal and therefore, the same is [iable to be dismissed. Consideration:

7. Perusal of the record would show that appellant ioined the respondent-Bank as Junior Assistarrt in November, 1984 and earned promotion as Assistant Accountant in August, 1994 and the date of birth of the appellant w,as mentioned as 06.10.1963 at the time of joining, however, the sarne was later modified as 06.10.1g65 after conducting a domestic enquiry, Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the date of birth of the appellant as 06.10.1965

8. On 24.07.2024, this Court n,hile giving r.rotice before admission, directed the learned counsel for respondent-Bank to file an affidavit clarifying whether they have acloptecl enhanced age of superannuation as 61 years and also n,hcthr.r the appcllar-rt has submitted VRS application on 21.09.2027. [)ursuant to the direction of this Court, respondent-Bank filed affidavit stating that copy of representation dated 27.09.2021, allegecl to have becn submitted by the appellant, filed before this Court is a fabricated one. It is further stated that in W.P.No.22139 of 2022 filed by the appellant, the appellant challenged rqrn-disposal of a pp lica tion/ rc1, re5s;11. iirn clated 76.03.2023, but not \r/ 7 ) .1KS.J & Lttl.J tt .l \o 872 o12024 the representation dated 21.09.2027; that the appellant came up with a concocted story rvith improved version in hI.P.No 6112 of 2023, which rightly clisrnissed br. the learned single Judge of this Court Irurther, there is no endorsement of the respondent-bank on the application dated 21 .09.2021 alleged to have been submitted by the appellant. It is Iurther contended that respondent-Bank has not offered any voluntary retirement scheme so as to make any application in the year 2027

9. A bare pt'rusal of copy of application clatecl 21.09.2021 filed Lrefore this Court rvould show that it reflects only the initial of the appellant ancl there is no acknowledgement of respondr:nt-bank, which rnanifestly clear that appellant manipulated tl-re application dated

27.09.2027 to plrl up his claim. In the counte'r filec'l br the resPondent- Bank, it is clcarlr, mentioned that they have not receit'ed any representation clated 21.09.2021 as allege<1 by the appc'llant Prior to represen ta tion d a ted 1 6.03.2022

10. As per the 17th General Body Meeting held on 02.09.2013, and as per the Banking Rules and the Golden Shakc' Hancl Scheme, an empiovee lvho opts for VRS scheme, must havc rninirrrum rernaining servlce gf fivc vears (60 months) as on the tlate of apptication. 6 n AKS,J & LNA.J w A No 872 of )021 According to the appellant, he made an application on 27.09.2027, followed by application dated 16.03.2022. Further, even assuming that appellant made an application dated 21.09.2021, followed by another application dated 16.03.2022 to the respondent-Bank, his leftover service was only about 26 months by 21.09.2021, and 20 months by

76.03.2022. As per the VRS and rhe Banking Rules, an employee, who opts for voluntary retirement, must have at [east five years (60 months) o[ leftover service as on the da tc oi submission of application. Therefore, even if the application dated 27.09.2021 allegedly s.ibmitted by the appellant is considered, he is not etigible for voluntary retirement since his lef tover service is less than five years (60 months). Further, it appears that appellarrt retired frorn service on 31.10.2023. 77 It is also pertinent to merrtion hercin that as per the Service Rules and Banking Rules, if an employee is facing departmental enquiry, he is not entitled to VRS till the cor-rclusiorr of the said proceedings. In the present case, appellant was facing clepartmcntal enquiry on the allegation that he altered the year of his date of birth in his service register by overwriting the year 1963 to sho\&,it as 1965 without any authority or proceeding. Or-r this ground also, the appellant is not entitled for voluntarv retirement \ 't }1KS,J & LI;A.J tl .4 No.872 of202J

72. Therefore,, viewed from any angle, the appellant is not entitled for voluntary retirement. Since the appellant had retired from service on 31.10.2023 on attaining the age of superannuation, the question of implementing VRS scheme to the appellant does not arise and cause in the *,rit appeal does not survive

13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the learned single Judge was justified in dismissing the W.P.No.6l12 oi 2023 and no grounds are made out wauanting interference of this Court with the well reasoned order of learned single Juclge. The Writ Appeal fails and accordingly dismissed,. There shall be no order as to costs Perrding rniscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed 1 //TRUE COPY// SD/- B.SAWAVATHI qEPUTY REGISTRAR N__ J SECTION OFFICER To,

4. KKS One CC to SRL M A K MUKHEED Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI V. RAJA SHEKAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR COOPERATION,High Court for the Siate of Telangana louTl I Two CD Copies s ) HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 F.. ."') rJ 11 ilAR zffi j^.'.\ r-...\ \ ,,' \ r. ll2:l (! .],;i \L. 3o41svL\-.19::' ,r t. I JUDGMENT WA.No.872 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q,;4 @ 11 3 1K