Narendra Kumar v. Chairman and Managing Director, Syndicate Bank
Background
The appellant, a Syndicate Bank Law Officer, went on deputation to the Debt Recovery Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal for several years and, while still on deputation, was selected and appointed as Presiding Officer of a Debt Recovery Tribunal. He wrote to the Bank seeking permission to take over the new post but received no response for 11 months; he eventually joined the new post directly instead of formally returning to the Bank first. Years later, when he sought pension, the Bank denied it, treating his conduct as "willful abandonment of service" that forfeited his past years of service under its Pension Regulations.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the Bank's stance was a "hyper-technical" and unsustainable reading of its own Pension Regulations. Since the appellant was on sanctioned deputation, had obtained a "No Objection Certificate" before applying, and had written seeking permission to join the new post (to which the Bank simply never responded for nearly a year), there was no genuine "interruption in service" as contemplated by the forfeiture clause. The Court quashed the Bank's orders, allowed the writ petition the appellant had originally filed, restored his pensionary entitlement, and additionally imposed Rs. 25,000 costs on the Bank for its unjustified stand.
Lesson Learnt
An employer cannot forfeit an employee's pension or past service on a hyper-technical reading of service rules, especially where the employee acted in good faith, sought permission, and the employer's own prolonged silence contributed to the situation.