Roop Singh Verma v. The Bharatpur Central Co-operative Bank, Bharatpur

Learned counsel for respondent Bank submits that so far as bonus is concerned, it has already been given to the petitioner. The benefit of PF could not be given for want of contribution of the employee. So far as closing allowance is concerned, it is admissible only to those who actually undertaken the work. Lastly, surrender leave under rule 91-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules is admissible only when it is claimed by the employee. Thus, other than PF, no amount is due for payment to the petitioner. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. It is a case where departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. He was placed under suspension and after enquiry exonerated. His remaining benefits of the suspension period were withheld by the respondent bank thus order was passed by this court in the earlier writ petition to grant due benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, retired from service. He has not been extended benefit of PF, bonus, surrender leave and closing allowance. 3 So far as non-payment of amount towards PF is concerned, respondent bank has admitted that amount of PF has not been paid to the petitioner but it is for want of employee's contribution. Respondent bank could not explain as to why necessary deduction was not made though it is required in the hands of the respondent employer and default therein can attract penal consequences against the employer. The respondent cannot take benefit of its own default. Accordingly, respondent bank is liable to extend benefit of PF along with interest. So far as benefit of closing allowance is concerned, the only argument is that petitioner has not actually performed during intervening period of suspension. Learned counsel could not justify respondent's action inasmuch as non-performance was for the period of suspension in a case where the allegations against the petitioner were not found proved. The petitioner was exonerated in the enquiry thus question comes as to whether the period of suspension can be held towards non-performance when the petitioner is exonerated in the enquiry thus deprived to work by the respondent bank. Once petitioner has been exonerated, he cannot be deprived to get all consequential benefits of the period of suspension which have already been allowed by this court in the 4 earlier writ petition and it include even benefit of closing allowance for the period aforesaid. It cannot be said that petitioner did not perform, rather, it was due to respondent bank which placed him under suspension. Accordingly, petitioner would be entitle to closing allowance. Now comes the benefit of surrender leave. As per rule 91 of the RSR, it is the petitioner who should seek grant of surrender leave. The language of rule 91A of the RSR suggests that on surrender of the PL not exceeding 30 days in a block of two years, encashment can be claimed. The only question is as to whether petitioner in fact surrendered PL in the block of two years. If he failed to do so then will not be entitled to the benefits as provided under rule 91A of the RSR. Aforesaid issue may be considered by the respondent bank. If request was made for surrender of PL for encashment pursuant to rule 91A of the RSR, then the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit and not otherwise. Lastly, the benefit of bonus. According to the respondent bank amount of bonus has already been paid to the petitioner,whereas, petitioner is having higher claim. The 5 respondent bank has not disputed claim of the bonus. The issue is as to what should be the amount of bonus. In view of the dispute regarding sufficiency of bonus amount, petitioner may calculate total amount of bonus payable to him as per law and if it is found to be short to what has been paid earlier, the amount can be claimed from the respondent bank by making a representation within a period of two months. The respondent will then consider the representation in accordance with law and if any amount is found short then would be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month form the date of the representation. With the aforesaid, writ petition is allowed. The benefit of PF would be admissible to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. So far as payment towards closing allowance is concerned, it will attract interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The difference in the rate of interest is due to statutory provision in that regard as non-payment of PF amount attracts interest on higher rate because it involves contribution of the employer as well as of the employee. So far as benefit of surrender leave is concerned, if claim is made admissible, then it may be extended to the petitioner without interest. So far as different of amount of bonus, if any, it will attract interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 6 (MN BHANDARI), J. bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed. (BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW