Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010129712024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/338/2024 THE STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, DIBRUGARH BRANCH SBI, THANA CHARIALI, DIBRUGARH, ASSAM 786001 VERSUS SMTI. USHA CHAKRABORTY W/O LATE PADUM CHAKRABORTY, RESIDENT OF C/O SARAT CHANDRA SARMA, SADA SIVA PATH, CHIRING CHAPORI, PO CHIRING CHAPORI, DIBRUGARH, ASSAM 786001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B J MUKHERJEE, MR. H BURAGOHAIN Advocate for the Respondent : MS S SHARMA, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 24.09.2025 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the appellant State Bank of India (SBI). Also heard Ms. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. 2. The appellant is aggrieved with the order dated 02.04.2024 passed in WP(C) 6660/2021 by the learned Single Judge, by which the SBI has been directed to consider the claim of the writ petitioner, for release of retiral and Page No.# 2/9 pensionary dues payable to her late husband for services rendered. The said direction had been passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that no proceedings had been drawn up against the late husband of the petitioner, resulting in the removal of the petitioner’s husband from service. As such, the petitioner’s husband was deemed to be in service till his demise on 22.02.2016 and for which, service benefits, including pension could not be denied to the petitioner. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner’s husband was appointed as a Messenger in the SBI on 24.11.1985. However, the petitioner’s husband was absent on various occasions. Thereafter, from 17.04.2002, petitioner’s husband was unauthorizedly absent till his death on 22.02.2016. Though the appellant had issued notices to the petitioner’s husband on 08.05.2002, 15.05.2002 and 13.06.2002, directing him to report for duty or else he would be deemed to have voluntarily retired from service on expiry of the notice period, the petitioner’s husband failed to report for duty. 4. The petitioner’s husband died on 22.02.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application on 04.05.2016 praying for release of retirement benefits of her husband. As no retirement benefits were being provided to the petitioner, the petitioner filed WP(C) 6660/2021, seeking a direction to release all the financial dues payable to her late husband. 5. The learned Single Judge allowed WP(C) 6660/2021, by observing that the petitioner’s late husband had never applied for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. As such, the Bank authorities could not have assumed that non-reporting for duty by the petitioner’s husband would amount to deemed voluntary retirement. The learned Single Judge thus held that when Page No.# 3/9 there were no proceedings initiated by the Bank to dismiss, terminate or compulsorily retire the petitioner’s late husband, the Memorandum dated 13.06.2002, indicating that the petitioner’s late husband would be deemed to be voluntary retired from service, upon his failure to report for duty in terms of the said Memorandum, could not be permitted to be accepted as a form for severing the relationship between the Bank and the petitioner’s late husband. The learned Single Judge held that the Bank was required to initiate proper proceedings to pass orders dismissing or terminating or removing or retiring the husband of the petitioner, in terms of the procedure prescribed. Such procedure not having been undertaken, the petitioner’s husband could not have been said to be voluntarily retired. As such, denial of service benefits to the petitioner was wholly improper and contrary to the provisions of law. It thus directed the appellant to examine the matter and consider the claims of the petitioner, for release of the retiral and pensionary benefits payable to her late husband. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Regulation 2.7 of HR Handbook, applicable to the State Bank of India, provides that when a person has been unauthorizedly absent and notices have been issued to him on two occasions, the person concerned would be deemed to be voluntarily retired, if he fails to report for duty in terms of the two notices issued to him. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the petitioner’s husband has deemed to have voluntarily retired from service in terms of Regulation 2.7, he would not be entitled to payment of pensionary benefits in terms of Regulation 22 of the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Funds Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2014 Regulations’). However, as the petitioner does not have the qualifying/eligibility criteria required in terms Page No.# 4/9 of Regulation 22, the petitioner cannot be given pension in terms of Regulation 22. He submits that the petitioner has however been given the Provident Fund and Gratuity during the proceedings before the learned Single Bench. He submits that when Regulations do not permit the giving of pension to the petitioner in view of the combined reading of Regulation 2.7 of the HR Handbook read with Regulation 22 of the 2019 Regulations, the decision of the learned Single Judge that an inquiry/proceeding was to be initiated for retiring the petitioner’s husband, which was not done, was erroneous. He accordingly submits that the said impugned judgment and order should be set aside. 8. Ms. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is entitled to pension, as the petitioner’s husband had worked for 17 years in the SBI and his absence was due to his illness. She submits that even though the petitioner’s husband did not take any leave from the competent authority, prior to being absent, the petitioner’s husband could not attend to his duty because he suffered from several severe diseases. She accordingly submits that there is no infirmity with the decision of the learned Single Judge and the same has to be upheld. In this regard, she has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant General Manager & Others vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey reported in (2020) 6 SCC 438, where a Voluntary Retirement Scheme had been floated for the officials of the Government Banks including the SBI, wherein the benefits of the scheme would be made available to those who completed 15 years of service. As the petitioner’s husband had completed 15 years of service prior to being on leave, the petitioner’s husband would have been entitled to the benefits of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme that had been initiated in the year 2000 and which has been reflected in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Page No.# 5/9 Assistant General Manager & Others vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey (supra). 9. Regulation 2.7 of the HR Handbook and Regulation 22 of the 2014 Regulations states as follows : “2.7 VOLUNTARY CESSATION OF EMPLOYMENT When an employee absents himself from work for a period of 90 or more consecutive days without prior sanction from the competent authority or beyond the period of leave sanctioned originally including any extension thereof or when there is satisfactory evidence that he has taken up employment in India or outside, the management at any time thereafter may give a notice to the employee at his last known address as recorded with the bank calling upon him to report for the work within 30 days of the date of the notice. Unless the employee reports for the work within 30 days of the notice or gives an explanation for his absence within the period of 30 days satisfying the management inter alia that he has not taken up another employment or avocation, the employee shall be given a further notice to report for work within 30 days of the notice failing which the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment on the expiry of the said notice and advised accordingly by registered post. In the event of the employee submitting a satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report for thereafter within 30 days from the date of expiry of the aforesaid notice without prejudice to the bank's right to take any action under the law or rules/conditions of service. If the employee fails to report for work within these 30 days period, then he shall be given a final notice to report for work within 30 days of this notice failing which the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment on the expiry of the said notice and advised accordingly by registered post. If an employee again absents himself for the second time within a period of 30 days without submitting any application and obtaining sanction thereof, after reporting for duty in response to the first notice given after 90 days of absence or within 30 days period granted to him for reporting to work on his submitting a satisfactory reply to the first notice, a further notice shall be given after 30 days of such absence giving him 30 days' time to report. If he fails to Page No.# 6/9 report for work or reports for work in response to the notice but absents himself a third time from work within a period of 30 days without prior sanction, his name shall be struck off from the rolls of the establishment after 30 days of such absence under intimation to him by registered post deeming that he has voluntarily vacated his appointment. Any notice under this clause shall be in language understood by the employee concerned. The notice shall be sent to him by registered post with acknowledgement due. Where the notice under this clause is sent to the employee by registered post acknowledgement due at the last recorded address communicated in writing by the employee and acknowledged by the bank, the same shall be deemed as good and proper service. To stand the legal scrutiny, it is essential that the employee concerned is given opportunity at each stage to report back for duties/explain his absence to the satisfaction of the bank. (CDO:IR: SPL:91 DATED 06.06.2005 & CDO/ P&HRD /IR/26 DATED 21/07/2005)” 22. Minimum service for pension.- (1) A member shall be entitled to a pension under these regulations on retiring from the Bank's service- (a) after having completed twenty years' pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after the 1st November, 1993, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty eight years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after the 22nd May. 1998, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of sixty years, (b) after having completed twenty years' pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained, if he shall satisfy the authority competent to sanction his retirement by approved medical certificate or otherwise that he is incapacitated for further active service- (c) after having completed twenty years pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained at his request in writing: (d) after twenty five years' pensionable service. (2) A member who has attained the age of fifty-five years or who shall be proved to the satisfaction of the authority empowered to sanction his retirement Page No.# 7/9 to be permanently incapacitated by bodily or mental infirmity from further active service (such infirmity not being the result of irregular or intemperate habits) may, at the discretion of the trustees, be granted a proportionate pension. (3) A member who has been permitted to retire under clause (c) of sub- regulation (1) shall be entitled to proportionate pension.” 10. Regulation 22 of the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Funds Regulations, 2014 provides as follows:- 22. Minimum service for pension.- (1) A member shall be entitled to a pension under these regulations on retiring from the Bank's service- (a) after having completed twenty years' pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after the 1st November, 1993, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty eight years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after the 22nd May. 1998, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of sixty years, (b) after having completed twenty years' pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained, if he shall satisfy the authority competent to sanction his retirement by approved medical certificate or otherwise that he is incapacitated for further active service- (c) after having completed twenty years pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained at his request in writing: (d) after twenty five years' pensionable service. (2) A member who has attained the age of fifty-five years or who shall be proved to the satisfaction of the authority empowered to sanction his retirement to be permanently incapacitated by bodily or mental infirmity from further active service (such infirmity not being the result of irregular or intemperate habits) may, at the discretion of the trustees, be granted a proportionate pension. (3) A member who has been permitted to retire under clause (c) of sub- Page No.# 8/9 regulation (1) shall be entitled to proportionate pension.” 11. We have perused the writ petition and the prayer made therein, which is as follows:- “In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, hear both the parties and call for the records, issue rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be granted Balance in Provident Fund (both sides) with interest, gratuity as applicable, leave salary if available, Ex-gratia lump sum amount payable in lieu of appointment, amount of Swampoorna Suraksha (SBI Life Insurance) and family pension and/or pass such further or other order or orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper for the end of justice. And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 12. The learned Single Judge, on considering the above prayers, had decided that as there were no proceedings drawn up against the late husband of the writ petitioner, to remove/dismiss him from service, he would be deemed to be in service till his demise. There was no occasion for the appellant to make any pleadings with regard to Regulation 2.7 of the HR Handbook, which provided that in the event of an employee not reporting or replying to two consecutive notices, to report back to work, the employee would be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment on the expiry of the said notice. 13. In the present case, the writ petitioner had gone on unauthorized absence and a notice was initially issued to him on 09.01.2002 to report back for duty. The writ petitioner rejoined his duty. However, he again went on unauthorized absence, w.e.f. 17.04.2002, due to which, he was asked to return to work, vide letter dated 08.05.2002, issued by the appellant, within 7 days. The same not Page No.# 9/9 having been done, notice dated 15.05.2002 was issued by the appellant, asking him to report for duty within 30 days. The same again not having been complied with, a second notice was issued on 13.06.2002, giving him another 30 days to report for duty. The writ petitioner, however, did not report for duty and neither did he submit any reply to either of the two notices. Though the second notice was issued prior to the expiry of 30 days, the question of whether the same had caused any prejudice to the writ petitioner, would have to be seen, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner never reported back for duty from 17.04.2002 till his death on 22.02.2016. 14. The above facts not having been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that that the said matter should be remanded back, to enable the appellant to file an additional affidavit with regard to Regulation 2.7 of the HR Handbook, applicable to the SBI employees, so that the learned Single Judge can consider the case afresh. Further, as the writ petitioner’s counsel has taken a stand that Regulation 2.7 of the HR Handbook was not in existence in the year 2002 and that it came into effect only from 2006, the said issue may also be decided by the learned Single Bench. 15. In view of the reasons stated above, we remand the matter back to the learned Single Bench, to take a fresh decision on the matter, after allowing the appellant to file an additional affidavit with regard to Regulation 2.7 of the HR Handbook. Consequently, the order dated 02.04.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 6660/2021 is hereby set aside. 16. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant