N.V. SUBBA RAOversusCORPORATION BANK AND ORS.

                                                                                      ...
A                                N.V. SUBBA RAO
                                          v.
                         CORPORATION BANK AND ORS.

                               NOVEMBER 30, 2006

B           [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.]


         Service Law:

         Pension and Gratuity-Dismissal order by employer revised to that of
c reversion to the post ofclerk-Reinstatement on the post of Clerk as per order
    ofHigh Court-Appeal to this Court seeking to treat the suspension period for
    reckoning pension and gratuity-Held: Employee entitled to the benefits of
    pension and gratuity from the date of suspension till the date ofreinstatement.

          Appellant was suspended and consequently dismissed by the
D
    respondent-Bank. The dismissal order was modified to that.of reversion
    to the post ofclerk as agreed to by both the parties before High Court.
    On the judgment of High Court, appellant was reinstated as a Clerk.

        Present appeal is limit.ed to the question whether the appellant was
E entitled  to treat the suspension period for reckoning the pension and
  gratuity.

          Disposing of the appeal, the Court

        HELD: When the order of dismissal is set aside and the appellant is
F reverted to the post of clerk he will be entitled to the service benefits
  including pension and gratuity available to the said post. It cannot be said
  that appellant will be entitled to the benefits only for the period from the
  date of suspension till the date of dismissal. The respondent-Bank is
  directed to treat the suspension period from the date of suspension till the
G date when he was reinstated as a Clerk, for reckoning pension and gratuity
  only.1878-F-H; 879-A-B)

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5601 of2006.

         From the Judgment and final Order dated 4.6.2002 of the High Court
H                                    876
                                                                                      I'
      N.V. SUBBA RAO v. CORPORATION BANK [LAKSHMANAN, J.]                   877
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.A. No. 1354/2000. ·                A
      Roy Abraham, Ms. Seema Jain and Himinder Lal for the Appellant.

      Dhruv Mehta, Harshvardhan Jha, Yashraj Deora and Mannoj Mehta (for
Mis. K.L. Mehta & Co.) for the Respondents.
                                                                                   B
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      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            C
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           D
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        E
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.                                                                   F
     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           G
            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:
                                                                                   H
    878                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A                "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
B                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."
                         Mr. Dhruv Mehta, appearing for the respondent-Bank,
                 placed before us a letter dated 30.6.2006 received by him in
c                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
D
                 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."
E
          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.
F
           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
G   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
H   submitted that the appellant , if at all will be entitled to the benefits only for
             N.V. SUBBA RAO v. CORPORATION BANK [LAKSHMANAN, J.]                879

    the period from 3.7.1985 to 28.7.1988. There is no merit in the said submission.   A
          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.

    K.K.T.                                                    Appeal disposed of.      B




-
/