Bombay HC Dismisses Petition Of Ex-Bank Employee Seeking Reconsideration Of Retirement Benefits Post Rectification Of Date Of Birth
|The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, dismissed a Writ Petition filed by a Co-operative Bank Employee seeking the grant of retirement benefits as per the by-laws due to subsequent rectification in date of birth. The Court noted that the rectification of the date of birth was a subsequent and a separate incident from the retirement.
The Court noted that the Petitioner had voluntarily retired and accepted the terms of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Therefore, he does not have a valid cause of action to seek reconsideration of retirement benefits. The Court also noted that the Petitioner, at the time of retirement, had not informed the Respondent regarding the ongoing proceedings for rectification of date of birth.
“At the time of retirement he (Petitioner) had not mentioned anything about his date of birth, he has accepted the amount which was offered by the respondent. After retirement, the petitioner ceased to be the employee of the respondent Bank. There is no relation between the petitioner and respondent Bank as employee and employer. Therefore, in such circumstances, we are of the view that in the absence of breach of any legal right of the petitioner writ jurisdiction is not required to be invoked”, the Bench comprising Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Justice Vrushali V. Joshi observed.
Advocate Masood Shareef appeared for Petitioner, Advocate S.K. Bhoyar for Respondent no. 1 and Assistant Government Pleader A.A. Madiwale appeared for Respondent no. 2.
The Petitioner began working for the Respondent/Co-operative Bank Limited (Bank) in July 1989. The Petitioner's birthdate was recorded as December 6, 1963, and their intended retirement date was December 5, 2021. However, the Bank mistakenly listed their birthdate as August 20, 1960, which would have resulted in an earlier retirement date of August 19, 2018. Despite numerous requests from the Petitioner to correct the error, the Bank declined. Instead, the Assistant Manager (Administration) of the Bank told the Petitioner that a legal opinion and a competent Court order were required to rectify the date of birth on his service record. The Petitioner filed a case with the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) asking for a direction to the Gram Panchayat to enter his correct date of birth. The Gram Panchayat complied with the CJM’s order and issued a Birth Certificate showing the Petitioner’s date of birth as December 6, 1963. The Petitioner alleged that he asked the Bank’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to grant him retirement benefits based on his correct date of birth. However, the Bank refused and informed the Petitioner that since he had voluntarily retired on December 31, 2016, they could not rectify his date of birth in their records. A Writ Petition was filed seeking a grant of retirement benefits per the by-laws of the Bank, considering the rectification in date of birth.
The Court noted, ‘the question to be considered is after acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement whether the petitioner could be permitted to take benefit of the fact that his date of birth has been permitted to be altered after his voluntary retirement from service’.
The Court observed that the Petitioner submitted a request for voluntary retirement to the Bank but did not mention the ongoing proceedings before the CJM. These proceedings were resolved after the petitioner retired from service, with a decision made by the CJM. The Court asserted that the petitioner sought to re-open the proceedings for their voluntary retirement based on the CJM’s order.
“The petitioner’s application seeking voluntary retirement does not make any reference to the pending proceedings with regard to corrections of his date of birth. The said proceedings came to be decided after the petitioner voluntarily retired from service. The order to that effect came to be passed on 23.02.2017 by the learned Magistrate. It is on the basis of this order that the petitioner has sought to re-open the proceedings pertaining to acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement”, the Bench noted.
The Court noted a relevant aspect that the CEO of the Bank had issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner expressing displeasure about his work. The Petitioner was asked to explain why he should not be retired from duty, but on the same day, he chose to apply for voluntary retirement.
“Another relevant aspect that requires mention is that on 18.10.2016 itself the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner expressing displeasure about his working. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not be compulsorily retired from service. It appears that on the same day, the petitioner has submitted his application seeking voluntary retirement from the service”, the Bench observed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Bhimrao v The Wardha District Central