High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed th.erewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the entire service of 33 years Tmonths of the petitioner for the purpose of pension as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to Law and contrary to Art. 14 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to recon the service of the petition sirrce he was acquitted in the Criminal Case in terms of Regulation-29 (a) and (5) of Staff Regulations, 1983 of Manjeera Grameena Bank for the purpose of retiral bene{its duly counting the service of the petitioner as 33 ylaars Trnonths and release the Pension accordingly duly considering the representation of the petitioner dated 15-11-2O18 in the interest of justice IA NO : 1 0F 2019 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the ci 'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cou"t may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representation of lhe petitioner dated 15-11-2018 in the interest of justice pending disposal of the :rbove writ petition lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the c:i'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou 1 may be pleased to amend to the main prayer in W.P. No- 2517512019 by ar:cling the following at page - 4 at sth lane after the words 'interest of iustice' and :efore the word ' and pass' with the following; and also declare the letter No' APGVB/PERTHRDIPen12O23-241213 daled 25-04-2023 ssued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to Law and (;ontrary to Art. 14 of the Constitution of lndia and set aside the same in the inter€ si of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. D. RAMAKRISHNA Counsel forthe Respondents: Ms. V. UMA DEVI The Court made the following: ORDER l./ /,i cIr' HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 25175 OF 2019 ORDER: It is the case of petitioner that while he was working in respondent bank, he was convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment in a Criminal Complaint (CC) No. 28 of 1992 under Section 498A lrc. by learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur. Aggrieved by the sentence, he is stated to have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1995 on the lile of learned Sessions Judge, West Godavari Division at Eluru. Pending Appeal, sentence of imprisonment v/as suspended uide Crl.M.P.No. 1757 of 1995 dated

09. I 1. 1995. Consequent to conviction, petitioner was dismissed from bank's service on 04-01. 1996 as per Regulation 29(3) (a) of Chapter 4 ol Manjeera Grameena Bank Staff Regulations, 1983 read u'ith Section 10(1Xb)(i) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Petitioner challenged the above said order of dismissal by hling Writ Petition No. 704 of 1996 during pendency of Criminal Appeal fited by him. The said Writ Petition was allowed on 23.O 1 1996 directing the Bank to continue petitioner in scrvice. Thereaftcr, respondent Bank filed Writ Appeal No. 282 ot t996 against the order dated 23.O1.1996 which was allorvecl on 02.04.1996 stating that suspension of I I t 2 sentence does not upheld his dismissal amount to suspension o[ (]onviction and Subsequently, Criminal ,{ rpeal No. 1g7 of 1995 was dismissed whereupon, petitioner liled Criminal Revision Case No. g59 of 1999 in which rx:rmrssion was accorcled for compounding the offence and the _ca[ter Revision was drsposed of acquitting petitioner of the said (_-ffence, rn 'iew of this acquittal, petitioner made representatiol. to respondent Bank for reinstating him into service for whr, .ir, respondcnt Bank rejected his representation as petitioner \virri not absolved of the criminal charges but the offence had be,er compouncled on the basis of compromise entered into betwt:r_r-L hrm and his wife. Aggrieved by the above decision, petitionr r. llled zrnother Writ Petition No. 225O5 of 2OO5 in which hrs Courr on 18.1O.UO05, gave an interim direction lor r(]rnstatement. Petitioner was reinstated into service on O3. I I..tt_OJ and Writ Pctition No. 225O5 of 2OO5 was finally disposcr:J rn l7.OU_20 I O as under: " Since the petitioner has already treen rernslrr . l rnto scr1,lce, Regulation 29(2)(a) has no application for considerarron . cgulanzarron of the period for which he was out of employment. l.lrr, ..rrrl Regulatron has application only. in case where an emplo],ee rr,as srL:rpcntled from service and not been convicted by any Court of la\r.. In rh,. l)r.csenr (.ase. Regulation 29(3)(a)(b) and (4) is applicabte, srnce this i:, .r case $.herc petitioner rvas dismissed from service on the convit:tior1 rr,(orded l)\ the criminal Oourt initially, which was set aside an(i j( I ll lonef tvas acquitted ()f the charge at a later point of time. Therctor ' 't is for the I I l ,t I J management to d€cide as to what benefits the petltioner is eotitled for irl a contiqgency of this nature, after considering his representation, under ttre above said regulations. {n view of the same, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-management to consider the case of the petitioner under Regulation 29lal and (5) of the Staff Regutations, 1983 of the Manjira Grameena Bank and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and communicate the same to the petitioner. No order as to costs."

2. Respondent - Bank avers that the above order clearly settles the issue in question relating to granting of benefits for which petitioner is entitled, to be considered by the Bank as per Regulatr,on 29{41 and (5) ol the Staff Regulations, 1983 of Manjira Grameena Bank. Thus, respondent Bank shall decide the entitlement for granting bcnefits to petitioner only as per Stalf Regulations, 1983 of Manj ira Grameena Bank. However, petitioner again challcnged the above order dated

17.08.2010 in Writ Appeal No. 691 of 2O1O to treat him as in service for consequential benefits but restrictecl his claim to the benefrt that accrues to him from the date o[ his reinstatement. This Court disposed of the Writ Appeal by order dated

28.09.2OIO without any specific orders for counting the service during the period of dismissal. Respondent Bank further contends that from the above said ordcr in Writ Appeal No. 691 of 2O1O, petitioner had restricted his claim to the benefit that accrues to him from the date of his reinstatement only and that I I .' t I 4 [he Bank ]ras to consider petitioner's case from .h.e date of his reinstalement only as per the Service Regulationr; of the Bank. Therefore, the contentions made by petitioner ztre totally in contrad iction with his contentions and claim lztised in Writ Appeal No 691 of 2O 10. 3 Heard Sri D. Rama Krishna, leartr: <l counsel for petitioner as well as Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned Sl:rrrding Counsel fcrr respondent bank.

4. After seeing t]le entire gamut of the ir;s;ue, it is to be seen I hat petitioner is taking pension dul'r taking into considr:ration the actua-l service rendered in the respondent bank as qualifying service for payment of pensirrr. Pctitioncr is scekinl3 pension considering his service from th, initial date oI joining to date of retirement on 3O.O9.2018, thtts lor payment of pension, 1[rc lotal service is 33 years 7 months, ltencc, hc alscr t'ontende<l that for the purpose of payment <;l pcnsion, the pcriod from O4.0i.1996 to 03.11.2O05 i.e. the :rcriocl from the cl:rte ol his dismissal from the services of the Barrl. to the date of rcinst:rtemcnt also needs to be counted.

5. Now the only issue that remains t:r be rlecidcd is n,heth(.rr petitioner is entitled to count th(' period lrom O4.O1.1996 to O3.11.20O5 i.e. from the date of lrLs dismissal to the datc ()l'reinstatement in the Bank? -.-.- J I I I I I I I I I ; 5

6. Payment of pension, qualifying service and forfeiture of service in respondent bank is governed by Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank (EmployeesJ Pension Regulations, 2018. The relevant Regulation dealing with such 'l interruption in service for the purpose of pension is Regulation 20, which reads as under. " Reg.2O. Forfeiture of service.- (l) Resignation not afiiounting to voluntary retirement or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the servrcc of the Bank shall entail for forfeiture of his entire past sewice and consequently shall not quali$ for pension under these regulatrons. (2) An interruption in the service of an emplo-vee entails forfeiture of his past service, except in the following cases, namel-\': (a) Authoriz€d (b) (b) suspension, where it is immediately followed b-v leave of absence; reinstatement, whether in the same or a differcnt post' or where the emptroyee dies or is permitted to retire or is retired under the provisions of the Service Regulations rvhile under suspension'.

7. Dismissal from service results in break in service under the applicable Pension Regulations. This break cannoL be counted as quatrying service unless specilrcall-v dirccted. [n llnion oJ Indta a. R.R, Pillai,t it u'as held that rcinstatement after acquittal does not entitle to back r'r'agcs or continuity unless specifically ordered. In this case, petitioner was dismissed from service from 04.O I ' 1996 to O3' I 1.2005 and evidenfly, the said period does not fall under the calegories of ' (2orol 2 scc 322 t I I ! t E 6 'authorLzed leave of absence' or 'suspension' as stigrulated under exceptions to forfeiture provided in Regulation 2t:) (2) (a) & (b). More so, there were no specific directions for cor: rrting the said period ,n orders o[ reinstatement. Therefore, this (l)ourt is of the opinion that respondent bank has rightly treatecr it as break in service and did not reckon to count as qualifuing :rervice for the purpose o[ computation of pension. The Writ Petition is therefore, hable to be dismissed.

8. costs.

9. The Writ Petition is accordingly, Cismissed. No Consequently, Miscellaneous Applir:e tions, if an,y sha[] st.and closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- Attltl E:DIABDULLAH KHAN nssrs\ANr REGISTRAR +CTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI, D, RAMAKRISHNA, AdVOCAtE 2. One CC to IVs. V. UMA DEVI, Advocate [OPUC 3. Two CD Copies BM LS rr oPu(ll J HIGH COURT DATED:0310712025 '.:, ./. ii _'. I ,r SEP 20fi \ \ 'i 'i. '._,'I-.-. ORDER WP.No.25175 of 2019 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WI]'HOUT COSTS --(c\ \- (t ,1(' i(.r\'''