Case Note & Summary
The case involved a writ appeal filed by the State Bank of India against the order of the learned Single Judge in WP.No.13678 of 2016, which had allowed the original writ petition filed by V. Indira Nawada, who was represented by her legal heirs after her demise. The original writ petition sought to quash the bank's acceptance of her resignation with retrospective effect and the denial of pension benefits. The petitioner had been appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in 1985 and had a history of unauthorized absences starting from 2003, totaling 1391 days. Despite multiple communications from the bank requesting her to report for duty, she failed to provide valid explanations for her absences. The bank ultimately accepted her resignation effective from the period of her absence. The learned Single Judge had ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the bank should have considered the periods of absence for pension benefits. However, the High Court found that the bank's actions were justified under the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, which stipulate that absence without leave does not count as pensionable service. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s conduct amounted to abandonment of service, and thus, the acceptance of her resignation was appropriate. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the writ appeal, concluding that the bank's decision warranted no interference.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Pension Benefits - Denial of Pension Due to Unauthorized Absence - State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 2014, Rule 21(i) - The court held that absence without leave does not count as pensionable service unless declared so by the reinstating authority. The bank's acceptance of resignation was justified due to the petitioner's prolonged unauthorized absence, and the learned Single Judge's order was set aside (Paras 10-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acceptance of resignation and denial of pension benefits due to unauthorized absence was justified.
Final Decision
The High Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.08.2023 and allowed the writ appeal, concluding that the bank's acceptance of resignation was justified due to the petitioner's unauthorized absence.
Law Points
- pension benefits
- unauthorized absence
- resignation acceptance
- disciplinary action
- abandonment of service
