Judgment Intelligence
Petition AllowedSayar Singh (through LRs) v. State Bank of India & Ors.
2023:RJ-JD:44837-DB
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4954/2004
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 21 December 2023
- Bench
- Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Rajendra Prakash Soni
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (named in the prayer as the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995) — Regulations 2(y), 3, 22, 29-32; Circular No. PER/48/83 dated 31.05.1983 (compassionate appointment); Constitution of India — Article 12
Final Outcome
Petition allowed; order of 19.01.2000 quashed. All pensionary benefits, including arrears and commutation, to be granted treating the original petitioner as retired on medical grounds under Circular No. PER/48/83, equitably to his legal representatives within three months of the certified copy, less any retiral dues already paid (para 16).
Key holdings
- Circular No. PER/48/83 did not make resignation a condition for a dependant's compassionate appointment (paras 8, 10).
- Denying pension under Regulation 22 for wording the Bank itself advised was a hyper-technical view (paras 11, 13).
- ‘Retirement’ was read in place of ‘resignation’ by a purposive interpretation of the Circular and the Regulations (paras 13-13.2).
- Pension is a recurring cause of action; the petition was allowed despite the Bank's objection of delay (paras 5.4, 14).
- The validity of the Pension Regulations was not decided, as that challenge was not pressed (para 15).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The original petitioner joined the Bank as a Guard in 1963. After a railway accident in 1980 his right leg was amputated (para 2), and he was made a Peon (para 7). On 02.11.1989 he applied for premature retirement on medical grounds. The Regional Manager accepted the request but required him to resign before his son could be appointed; he applied again on 28.11.1989, left service on 31.12.1989, and his son was appointed (para 3). He challenged the order of 19.01.2000 and sought pension (para 1); he died in 2004 and his legal representatives continued (para 2). The Bank relied on Regulation 22, under which resignation disqualifies an employee from pension, and said he had consciously resigned (paras 5-5.2).
Court's Findings
The Division Bench found that Circular No. PER/48/83, on compassionate appointment for dependants of employees compelled to leave service through incapacity, speaks only of leaving service on medical grounds and nowhere makes resignation, and so the loss of pension, a condition precedent (paras 8, 10). The original petitioner fell within the Regulations' bracket of 01.01.1986 to 01.11.1993, having retired on 31.12.1989 (paras 9, 11). He used the word ‘resignation’ only on the advice of Bank officials, although he could have sought retirement and still secured his son's appointment (para 13). Relying on Regulation 22 was a hyper-technical view of a situation the Bank itself created (para 11); the Bank, a ‘State’ under Article 12, pressing that word against a Peon was exploitation (para 12). Applying a purposive interpretation to advance the purpose of the Circular and the Regulations, the Bench read ‘retirement’ in place of ‘resignation’ (paras 13-13.1). Resignation is a disqualification under the Regulations, but here the Bank had virtually compelled that wording; pension being a recurring cause of action, the petition succeeded (para 14). The challenge to the Regulations' validity was not pressed and was not decided (para 15).
Legal Principle
Where an employee leaving service on medical grounds uses the word ‘resignation’ only on the employer's advice, and the governing scheme did not require resignation, the term is read purposively as ‘retirement’. A mere change in vocabulary cannot take away pension earned by long qualifying service (paras 13-13.2, 14).
Precedents Relied Upon
- BSES Yamuna Power Limited v. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma & Anr. (2020) 3 SCC 346
Relied on by counsel for the Bank: an employee who resigns submits to the legal consequences of resignation, which forfeits past service, and a resignation cannot be re-classified as voluntary retirement; not discussed further in the judgment.
