Summary
The Supreme Court upheld voluntary-retirement benefits for an Indian Bank officer whose request for shorter notice had been rejected without the assessment required by Regulation 29. He had been transferred abroad, rather than deputed, so the one-year service restriction on return did not apply. Although rejection was decided within the notice period, its illegality remained decisive. Later disciplinary proceedings could not survive the retirement recognized in this case.
Issues
- Whether the voluntary-retirement request complied with Regulation 29 despite seeking curtailment of notice.
- Whether the overseas-service restriction or timely issuance of the rejection sustained the bank’s refusal.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 29, Indian Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995The regulation permits a reasoned request for shorter notice and requires consideration of administrative inconvenience. The overseas-return restriction applies to deputation or study leave abroad, rather than this posting by transfer. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
Held
- A request for curtailment did not render the retirement notice defective. The bank had to consider that request on its merits, including administrative inconvenience, rather than reject it without reasons as inconsistent with the regulations. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- The posting and return documents established transfer, not deputation or repatriation. The proviso requiring a year of service in India after return from deputation or study leave therefore did not disqualify this officer. (¶ 11)
- The rejection decision was taken within the notice period, but that did not cure its substantive illegality. The outcome rested on the invalid refusal, rather than merely the employee’s later receipt of the communication. (¶ 12)
- The employee was entitled to retirement benefits on the voluntary-retirement basis upheld by the High Court. Consequent later disciplinary proceedings were non est in this case because the employer-employee relationship had ended. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Result
Bank appeal dismissed without costs; the High Court’s quashing of the refusal and direction for voluntary-retirement benefits maintained.