A cancer patient who was ‘voluntarily’ retired by a nationalised bank has won a legal battle for pension with the Madras High Court declaring she is entitled to the benefit.
A Division Bench comprising Justices C.Nagappan and M.Sathyanarayanan granted a declaration on an appeal by Premila Kiruba Augustus. She joined the State Bank of India as a Clerk-cum-Typist at the Bangalore Main Branch and on her request was transferred to Chennai Circle in January 1981. She was posted as Electronic Machine Operator from May 1990. When she was on leave for personal reasons, the bank ‘voluntarily retired’ her from service on March 31, 1999. She challenged the order by raising an industrial dispute and after failure, prayed for reference before the Labour Ministry. It was declined on grounds of delay. She made several requests to settle her pension.
She had completed 25 years of service of pensionable service. Her gratuity and provident fund were settled in 2005. However, her request for pension was not considered.
Hence, she filed a writ petition. She was not guilty of delay because the bank failed to respond to her representations.
She could not pursue her pension claim as her husband underwent a bypass surgery and her father, who was living with her, also underwent a hip replacement surgery and later died. She was diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing treatment. She sought to declare the bank’s action in not sanctioning pension after retiring her as illegal.
The bank contended that the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned her service. Therefore, in terms of a bipartite settlement, she was voluntarily retired from service. Since, she did not make made a request seeking voluntary retirement, she could not claim pension.
In June last year, a single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to settle the pensionary benefits depending upon the outcome of another case before the Supreme Court arising out of a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling that the settlement in question had undergone change after the Seventh Bipartite settlement with regard to the bank’s power to voluntarily retire a person on grounds of cessation of employment. Mrs. Augustus and the bank preferred appeals against the single Judge’s order.
The petitioner’s counsel, S.Vaidyanathan, said the case pending before the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the facts of the present case. Since the bank itself had voluntarily retired the petitioner from service, it amounted to deemed voluntary retirement. As a corollary, the petitioner was entitled to pension as she had put in the required number of years of pensionable service.
Writing the common judgment for the Bench, Justice M.Sathyanarayanan said considering the facts and circumstances and the Supreme Court’s decision in Syndicate Bank vs Satya Srinath, which was applicable to the present case, it was of the view that voluntary retirement had been forced on the petitioner. The bank’s contention that she had voluntarily abandoned the service could not be sustained.
There was no necessity to await the Supreme Court’s judgment.
The Bench allowed her appeal and dismissed the bank’s appeal.
