INDIAN BANK AND ANOTHER versus MAHAVEER KHARIWAL

INDIAN BANK AND ANOTHER versus MAHAVEER KHARIWAL

The rejection of the application for voluntary retirement dated 21.01.2004 by communication dated 20.04.2004 was bad in law because the appointing authority failed to consider the employee's request for curtailment of the three months' notice on merits and gave no reasons; the proviso to Regulation 29(1) did not...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Indian Bank and Another; Respondent: Mahaveer Khariwal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Delhi
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Voluntary Retirement, Indian Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, Regulation 29, Departmental Enquiry, Retiral Benefits
Service Law Voluntary Retirement Indian Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 Regulation 29 Departmental Enquiry Retiral Benefits

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Indian Bank and Another

Appellant

Mahaveer Khariwal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the High Court of Delhi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rejection of employee's application for voluntary retirement dated 21.01.2004 was legal and in consonance with Regulation 29 of the Indian Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995
  2. 2 Whether proviso to Regulation 29(1) (bar on deputation/study leave abroad) applied to the employee
  3. 3 Whether the appointing authority was required to consider the request for curtailment of three months' notice on merits and give reasons for rejection

Ratio Decidendi

The rejection of the application for voluntary retirement dated 21.01.2004 by communication dated 20.04.2004 was bad in law because the appointing authority failed to consider the employee's request for curtailment of the three months' notice on merits and gave no reasons; the proviso to Regulation 29(1) did not apply because the employee was transferred (not on deputation); accordingly the employee is entitled to retiral benefits under the Pension Regulations, 1995 and subsequent departmental enquiry proceedings are null and void.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Respondent entitled to release of retiral dues in accordance with the Indian Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995