Summary
A bank employee’s direct transition from an extended deputation to appointment as DRT Presiding Officer was not an interruption or abandonment of bank service justifying pension forfeiture. The bank had issued a no-objection certificate, knew of the appointment, and failed for eleven months to respond to his request for permission to join. Requiring a brief return to the bank solely for formal relief was hypertechnical on these facts. The pension-denial orders were quashed.
Issues
- Whether failure to return briefly to the parent bank before taking up the notified tribunal appointment caused interruption or abandonment of service.
- Whether the pension-denial orders could stand in the circumstances.
Held
- The employee obtained the bank’s no-objection certificate, remained on extended deputation pending selection, and requested permission before joining within the appointment deadline. The bank’s prolonged silence could not discredit his conduct. (¶ 14)
- A direct transition while on deputation did not constitute interruption of service attracting Regulation 22(2) forfeiture. Insisting on a return for a few days followed by formal relief was unjustified on these facts. (¶ 15)
- The bank’s orders and High Court dismissal were unsustainable. Amounts due with interest as per norms and Rs.25,000 costs were payable within two months. (¶ 16–17)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court dismissal set aside and bank orders denying benefits quashed. Bank directed to remit amounts due, interest as per norms, and Rs.25,000 costs within two months.