Judgment:
Ashok Parihar, J.
1. After initiating disciplinary proceedings against respondent No. 1, the concerned employee, a memorandum of charges was issued to him oh 16.6.1989. After holding a regular enquiry, seven charges have been proved fully and one partly proved out of 9 charges. An opportunity of hearing was given to the concerned employee after supplying a copy of enquiry report. Considering the representation made by the concerned employee, as per provisions of Regulation 67-F of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Officers (Service) Regulations 1979, a major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on the, concerned employee vide order dated 31st May, 1991. In the punishment order it has further been mentioned that concerned employee shall not be entitled for any salary, allowance and other benefits for the period of suspension except for the subsistence allowance already paid.
2. Subsequently having denied pensionary benefits, a writ petition came to be filed before this Court on 15.3.97 with the following prayers:
(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby quash and set aside the order dated 8.1.97 and 20.1.1997;
(ii) thereby held that petitioners is entitled for pension benefit and direct the respondents to extend the benefit of pension to the petitioner from the date he became entitle with interest;
(iii) any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be also passed.
3. Relying on judgment of Supreme Court' in case of Bank of India v. Induraj Gopalan in Civil Appeal No. 6959/97 decided on 5.4.2000. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition vide order dated 16.7.2002 directed the present appellant to make payment of pension within sixty days. Hence, the present appeal challenging the order dated 16.7.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge.
4. After hearing counsel for the parties, we have carefully gone through the record.
5. As has already referred, there is no dispute that the concerned employee was compulsorily retired by way of punishment as per Regulations of 1979. the order of compulsory retirement is not under challenge in the present writ petition. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, first time came to be framed and made effective w.e.f. 29.9.95. As per provisions of Regulation No. 33 direction has been given to the Competent Authority to allow pensionary benefits to employee compulsorily retired from service as penalty. However, benefit is to be given only to the employees who have been retired alter first day of November 1993. The cut-off date mentioned in Regulation No. 33 is also not under challenged in the present matter.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent employee with all vehemence at his command, relying on some Judgments of High Court and Apex Court; submitted that the matters of ordinary retirement, premature retirement and compulsory retirement by the way of major penalty should be treated at par and the employee should be granted benefit of pension to all eventualities. In our opinion, the submissions so made by the learned Counsel for the respondent are wholly misconceived. It is only under a particular statute the benefit of pension and other retiral benefits can be granted to different category of employees under different circumstances and the courts do not interfere with such discretions of the authorities while framing regulation, as also granting benefit in appropriate cases as per regulations.
7. Learned Single Judge without referring to the facts of the case, has relied on judgment of Supreme Court in case of Bank of India v. Indu Rajgopalan (supra). However, in our opinion, facts of the above case are entirely different. It was not a case of compulsory retirement by way of punishment and only a case of voluntary retirement, and further, in view of the concession made by the counsel of concerned Bank that there will not be much financial burden on Bank to pay pension the court without deciding the Issue involved, directed the Bank to make payment as per direction of the High Court. Learned Counsel for respondent employee have also relied on the judgment of Division Bench of Bombay High Court in case of Sadanand Parshuram Limaya v. Bank of India Writ petition No. 1154 of 1996 decided on 18.11.2002 as also judgment of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of Canara Bank, Head Office, J.C. Road, Banglore v. B.M. Ramachandra and Ors. 1999 (4) Kar. L.J. 628 (DB). However, Sadanand Parshuram's matter was a case of compulsory retirement, without holding enquiry and court observed that it cannot be treated as punishment whereas in Canara Bank matter in a case of voluntary retirement, the court observed that cut-off date mentioned in the regulations is not relevant. On the other hand, under exactly similar circumstances, where a penalty of compulsory retirement had been imposed on the employee concerned, Division Bench of Delhi High Court in case of Kailash Nath Singhal v. Union of India and other decided on 22nd February 2002, dismissed the claim of the concerned employee for granting pension. While considering judgment in case of Indu Rajgopalan (Supra), the Court observed that the financial burden of the bank is not relevant. The Court further observed that High Court does not have the powers to deviate from the relevant regulations, and brush aside the legal position under the pretext of financial burden on the bank in absence of any specific powers. Since it is entirely within the discretion of the authorities in regard to giving particular benefit to a particular employee, in absence of any allegation of discrimination or malafides the court cannot grant relief only on human compassionate grounds. After having going through the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Kailash Nath Singhal, we find no ground for take any other contrary view in the present matter on similar facts. Having considered entire facts and circumstances, since learned Single Judge has only been swayed by the sympathetic compassionate considerations without referring to the actual facts and relevant regulations applicable in the present case, the order dated 16.7.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eyes 1 of law.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Order dated 16.7.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Learned Counsel for respondent employee, however, submitted that the order of compulsory retirement dated 21.5.91 has subsequently been challenged in separate writ petition and the same is pending before the learned Single. It goes without saying that in case the writ petition filed by the respondent employee is allowed and the order of compulsory retirement is set aside by the Competent court, respondent employee can always free to make representation before the concerned authorities for getting necessary benefits.