http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5601 of 2006

PETITIONER: N.V. Subba Rao

RESPONDENT: Colrporation Bank & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/11/2006

BENCH: DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN & TARUN CHATTERJEE

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT (Arising out of SLP(C) No.24557 OF 2003)

Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.

       Leave granted.         Heard Mr. Roy Abraham, learned counsel for the appellant  and Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents.  We  have perused order impugned in this appeal.  The learned counsel  appearing for the Corporation Bank submitted before the High  Court that the Management had decided to revert the appellant to  the lowest post of clerk by revising impugned order of dismissal.   For the said proposal, the counsel for the respondent-employee had  also submitted before the High Court that the employee was  agreeable to accept the punishment of reversal to the lower post.   In view of the submission made as above, the High Court has not  gone into the merits of the case and disposed of the same on the  said submissions.  On the basis of the above order passed by the  High Court, the appellant herein was reinstated as a clerk on  6.2.1997.  The grievance of the appellant is that he was not given  any benefit to the post in question namely the clerk from the date of  suspension up to the date of reinstatement.

       When the special leave petition came before this Court for  admission, this Court on 19.12.2003, after condoning the delay,  issued notice to the respondent-Bank.  On  3.4.2006, this Court  passed the following order: "Let the counsel for the respondents take  instructions as to whether the bank will be willing to  treat the suspension period for reckoning pension  and gratuity of the petitioner.  We make it clear that  in all other respects we are not inclined to interfere  with the impugned order."

       On 5,7,2006, after hearing the respective counsel, this  Court passed the following order:         "Heard Mr. L.N. Rao, learned Senior  Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhruv Mehta,  learned counsel for the respondents.         On 3.4.2006, this Court passed the  following order "Let the counsel for the respondents take  instructions as to whether the bank will be  willing to treat the suspension period for  reckoning pension and gratuity of the  petitioner.  We make it clear that in all  other respects we are not inclined to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

interfere with the impugned order."         Mr. Dhruv Mehta, appearing for the  respondent-Bank, placed before us a letter dated  30.6.2006 received by him in regard to the above  direction.  The letter is thus placed on record.         It is seen from the letter that the  competent authority of the respondent-Bank is  not agreeable to treat the suspension period of  the petitioner herein for reckoning pension and  gratuity.  Therefore, we have to hear the parties in  regard to only question as to whether the  suspension period can be treated for reckoning  pension and gratuity.  Both the parties will be at  liberty to address arguments only on this issue.         Post the special leave petition for final  disposal on 29th August, 2006."

       Since the Bank was not agreeable to treat the suspension  period of the appellant for reckoning pension and gratuity, we heard  the parties in regard to the only question as to whether the  suspension period can be treated for reckoning pension and  gratuity.  We heard both parties at length.

       In the instant case, the appellant was suspended on  3.7.1985 and dismissed from service on 28.7.1988.  Thereupon,  the said order of dismissal was modified to that of reversion to the  post of clerk as agreed to by both the parties before the High Court.   Now, the only question is whether the appellant is entitled to treat  the suspension period for reckoning the pension and gratuity.  It is  not in dispute that no service benefit as clerk was given to the  appellant from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement.   When the order of dismissal is set aside and the appellant is  reverted to the post of clerk, we are of the view that he will be  entitled to the service benefits including pension and gratuity  available to the said post.  Mr. Dhruv Mehta submitted that the  appellant , if at all will be entitled to the benefits only for the period  from 3.7.1985 to 28.7.1988.  There is no merit in the said  submission.

       We, therefore, direct the respondent-Bank to treat the  suspension period from 3.7.1985 to 6.2.1997 for reckoning pension  and gratuity only.  The appeal stands disposed of on the above  terms.  There shall be no orders as to costs.