Form No. J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 14240 of 2012 Swapan Kumar Das Vs. Union of India & Ors. Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sudip Deb For the Petitioner : Mr. Balaram Neogi For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 : Mr. Debasish Saha Ms. Sucheta Pal Heard on : 23.09.2026 Judgment on : 23.09.2026 Sudip Deb, J. (Dictated in Court) :- 1. This instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for cancellation of the notices vide Memo No. Bid/R3/Gen./62 dated 14th May, 2012 and Memo No. B.M. No. 23 dated 22nd June, 2012. In furtherance thereto, a prayer has also been made for consideration of the representation of the petitioner dated 20th June, 2012 relating to his claim for voluntary retirement from service since 2010 to till date along with all retirement benefits to the petitioner. 2 2. When this writ petition was moved an order was passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 17th September, 2012 directing the parties to file their respective affidavits. Pursuant thereto, the respondents had filed their affidavit-in-opposition and the petitioner had also filed his affidavit- in-reply. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been appointed as clerk-typist on 12th November, 1985 in the Regional Office, Region-I, Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas by the Regional Office of State Bank of India vide memorandum dated 29th May, 1986. He further submits thereafter the petitioner had worked in the said post uninterruptedly till the time petitioner’s health deteriorated. He further submits that since the petitioner belonged to schedule caste candidate, the petitioner was victimized by the other office staffs of the bank and he become mentally ill. He submits that the petitioner had accepted the transfer order and also joined duty at Garulia Branch, State Bank of India, North 24 Parganas. 4. He further submits that thereafter because of health issues, the petitioner made a representation dated 20th June, 2012 to the respondent authorities for allowing him to take voluntary retirement from service as his health condition did not permit him to continue with the service. The learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that in this regard several letters had been written by the learned advocate representing the petitioner addressed to the respondent authorities 3 requesting the respondent authorities to give the actual salary to the petitioner. He further contends that the respondent authorities had wrongfully and illegally issued the notices dated 14th May, 2012 and 22nd June, 2012. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the notice dated 14th May, 2012 whereby the petitioner was informed by the respondent authorities that the petitioner had voluntarily vacated the service is contrary to the Rules of the bank. He further submits that the notice dated 22nd June, 2012 whereby the respondent authorities had intimated the petitioner that the petitioner has to deposit one month’s salary to get the benefits in terms of the representation dated 20th June, 2012 was also improper and those two aforesaid notices had been issued without giving any proper reason. He submits, as such, the said notices dated 14th May, 2012 and 22nd June, 2012 should be cancelled and in terms of the representation dated 20th June, 2012 the petitioner should be given all the benefits for taking voluntary retirement from service. 5. The learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner did not accept the order of transfer. He submits that the order of transfer was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition and the same got dismissed for non prosecution on 4th April, 2025. He further submits that after dismissal of the said writ petition the petitioner should have accepted the order of transfer and joined service at Garulia Branch. 4 6. The learned advocate for the respondents further submits that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of voluntary retirement. He submits that after the order of transfer, the petitioner joined service for few days and thereafter did not report for duty and because of such non-compliance on the part of the petitioner, three notices were issued to the petitioner to report for duty in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 2nd June, 2005 (8th Bipartite Settlement). He submits that in terms of Clause 33 of the said Memorandum of Settlement the Bank is entitled to issue notice to the petitioner in the event the petitioner remains absent for a period of 30 days. He further contends that by invoking Clause 33 of the said Memorandum of Settlement three notices were sent to the petitioner, namely, notice dated 1st February, 2012, (appearing at page 16 of the affidavit-in-opposition), notice 7th March, 2012 (appearing at page 28 of the writ petition) and notice 14th May, 2012 (appearing at page 39 of the writ petition). He submits that despite receiving the said notices the petitioner did not report for duty. He further submits because of this finally on 15th May, 2012, the respondent no.5 had written a letter addressed to the learned advocate for the petitioner informing that since the petitioner had failed to report for duty for a period of more than 90 days as per the Rules applicable in this regard, it would be deemed that the petitioner has voluntarily vacated his service and accordingly no benefit can be given to the petitioner. The learned advocate for the respondents also draws the 5 attention of this Court to a circular dated 17th January, 2009 (appearing at page 14 of the affidavit-in-opposition), which, inter alia, records that as per the 8th Bipartite Settlement if an employee does not report for duty after receiving the notices then the said employee will be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment on the expiry of the notices. The said memorandum dated 17th January, 2009 talks about voluntary cessation of employment and according to him, the petitioner’s case falls under this particular clause. He further submits there was no illegality on the part of the Bank in holding that the petitioner had voluntarily vacated his service as he did not report for duty even after receiving three notices each of which was issued after a period of 30 days. He further draws the attention of this Court to Sub-clause (ii) of Clause 33 of the Memorandum of Settlement which talks about voluntary cessation of employment and submits that once the petitioner fails to report for the duty even after receiving the notices the petitioner name shall be struck off from the rolls of the establishment and accordingly the petitioner will not be entitled to get any benefits. It is contended that in reply to the representation of the petitioner dated 20th June, 2012, the respondents have categorically stated by their letter dated 22nd June, 2012 that in order to get the benefits the petitioner has to deposit one month’s salary to the respondents but the petitioner has not complied the said direction also. As such, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the writ petition. 6 7. I have heard the parties at length. 8. It appears from the records that the petitioner had written letters, namely, letters dated 10th November, 2010 and 13th November, 2010 along with the doctor’s certificates to the respondent No.5 intimating about his illness. By the said letters the petitioner had informed the respondent authorities that he will join service after recovery with the consent of the doctor. It also appears from the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply that the petitioner had joined his service in the year 2010 after he was transferred from Zonal Administrative Office, Bidhannagar at Ultadanga, State Bank of India to Garulia Branch, North 24 Parganas. It is only after joining the service at Garulia Branch, North 24 Parganas, the petitioner’s health got deteriorated and not before that. Prior to that petitioner never complained about his illness. This surfaced for the first time when the transfer order was issued and petitioner joined service at the place where he was transferred. This is also an admitted position that from 10th November, 2010 to 1st January, 2012 (the date on which the petitioner prayed for his voluntary retirement) no application had been filed by the petitioner for leave because of his illness. Admittedly, there was also no contemporaneous documents disclosed in the proceeding wherefrom it would be evident that the petitioner had reported for duty after receiving the aforesaid three notices issued by the respondent authorities. It is also important to mention here that after issuance of the first notice dated 1st February, 2012 in terms of clause 33 7 of the Memorandum of Settlement (8th Bipartite Settlement) at the instance of the respondent authorities, the petitioner had given a reply on 8th February, 2012 through his learned advocate denying the allegations made in the said notice. In the said reply the petitioner through his advocate disputed the quantum of the salary. The said letter also records that the petitioner had accepted the fact that he could not join office for some time because of his illness. It further appears that thereafter another notice was issued by the respondent No.5 addressed to the petitioner on 7th March, 2012 intimating the petitioner to report for duty within 30 days from the date of the notice. However, instead of joining service the petitioner gave a reply through his learned advocate that the petitioner wants to voluntarily retire from service. This apart, it is also evident from a letter dated 10th April, 2012 that the petitioner on 2nd January, 2012 had also requested the respondent no.5 to pay the salary and allowances to the petitioner. The said letter also records the fact that the petitioner has asked for voluntary retirement because of indifferent attitude of his colleagues. Thereafter, a third notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.5 on 14th May, 2012 on the same ground as stated in the earlier two notices and petitioner was once again asked to report for duty. Thereafter on 15th May, 2012 the respondent No.5 had made another communication stating that since the petitioner had failed to report for duty even after receiving the third notice, the petitioner had been considered as deemed to have voluntarily 8 vacated his service as per the service conditions of the bank applicable to its staff. What this Court finds that after receiving this communication, the learned advocate acting on behalf of the petitioner yet again wrote letter dated 7th June, 2012 addressed to the respondent no.4 denying the allegations made in the said letter. By the said letter the learned advocate for the petitioner referred to the earlier representations made on behalf of the petitioner to the bank. However, this Court did not find any evidence that the petitioner had joined service after receiving the three aforesaid notices. 9. This Court also finds that after this, the final representation came from the petitioner dated 20th June, 2012 addressed to the respondent No.5 requesting yet again to accept your petitioner’s prayer for voluntary retirement and to pay all the benefits to the petitioner as per the rules. The said representation had been replied by the respondent No. 5 by his letter dated 22nd June, 2012 saying that one month’s salary has to be deposited to the bank to get the benefits as stated in the representation dated 20th June, 2012. 10. What is important to see here is that though the petitioner had made requests for voluntary retirement before 1st February, 2012 when the first notice was issued and even after receiving the second notice dated 7th March, 2012 but the bank had never accepted such requests. Instead, the bank took a consistent stand that the petitioner should report to the duty immediately. All the three notices demonstrate such 9 fact. It is also evident that despite receiving the three notices the petitioner did not report for duty. From the acts and conduct of the petitioner this also appears that initially after accepting the transfer order the petitioner did not want to join service citing health issues and instead prayed for voluntary retirement and consequential benefits from the bank. The respondent authorities have taken a stand in their affidavit-in-opposition that explanation of the petitioner was not satisfactory. No leave application had also been filed by the petitioner. This Court also finds that respondent no. 5 had written a letter addressed to the petitioner on 25th September, 2011 categorically pointing out that no medical certificate had been forwarded to the respondent authorities. 11. It also appears from a conjoint reading of the Circular dated 17th January, 2009 and Memorandum of Settlement (8th Bipartite Settlement) dated 2nd June, 2005 that bank has a right to issue notice to its employee if he consistently remains absent for a period of 30 days or more. From a conjoint reading of the said Circular as well as the said Memorandum of Settlement (8th Bipartite Settlement) it also appears that voluntary cessation of employment happens when an employee remains absence for a period of 90 days or more consecutively without prior sanction from the competent authority. From a conjoint reading of the said two documents it further appears that in case an employee fails to report for duty after a period of 90 days then he shall be deemed to have 10 voluntarily vacated his employment. There is no ambiguity about the applicability of these rules so far as the petitioner is concerned. Rule 33 Sub-Rule 2 of the Memorandum of Settlement (8th Bipartite Settlement) further records the fact that if the employee does not report to duty and remains absent for the 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. This procedure has been duly followed by the respondent authorities. 12. In the instant case, the petitioner was fully aware of these rules. The circular dated 17th January, 2009 clearly records about 8th Bipartite Settlement and also in no uncertain terms talks about when an employee will be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment. The aforesaid circular has been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition and therefore, the petitioner had full knowledge about this. 13. The petitioner cannot take the plea of ignorance of the applicability of the said rules. It is true that several representations were made to the bank on behalf of the petitioner about voluntary retirement both before or after issuance of the aforesaid notices by the bank asking the petitioner to report for duty. It is also important to note here that the bank had never accepted such plea of the petitioner. It is equally important to mention here that the petitioner should have made an application for leave when the petitioner remained absent from 10th November, 2010 onwards for a 11 considerable period of time. Application for voluntary retirement had been made on 2nd January, 2012 and not before that. Prior to that the petitioner remained absent for a considerable period of time without any application for leave. To that extent, the stand of the respondent authorities so far as issuing the aforesaid notices are concerned is justified. This Court is of the view that once a notice is issued it is the duty of the petitioner to report for duty otherwise the bank will always have the discretion of exercising its right of issuing notice as contemplated under Clause 33 Sub-clause (ii) of the Memorandum of Settlement (8th Bipartite Settlement) to be read with Circular dated 17th January, 2009. The bank has duly exercised such right. In fact, the representation to the petitioner dated 20th June, 2012 had already been duly replied by the bank by its reply dated 22nd June, 2012 where the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner has to deposit one month’s salary to get the benefits in terms of the representation dated 20th June, 2012. However, the petitioner chose not to do so. 14. It is also important to note here that though the petitioner had stated that because of certain unacceptable comments made by his colleagues it was not possible for him to act on the basis of transfer but the fact remains the petitioner for few days had reported to duty at the Garulia Branch which cannot be disputed. Therefore, the reason cited by the petitioner so far as not joining the duty is not acceptable to the Court at all. 12 15. It is equally important to take note of the fact that bank has duly exercised his right by giving notices in terms of the rules applicable for its employees. This Court does not find any irregularity or perversity on the part of the bank so far as issuing the notices are concerned as also the respondents finding based on these notices that the petitioner deemed to have voluntarily vacated his service. 16. This Court is also of the view that since the petitioner had continued his service for at least twenty six years the petitioner is entitled to the benefits as per the rules applicable. The fact that the petitioner was entitled to get benefits had also been admitted by the respondent authorities in the letter dated 22nd June, 2012. The respondent authorities did not give benefits to the petitioner in terms of the representation dated 20th June, 2012 because the petitioner had not deposited his one month’s salary to the respondent authorities. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the petitioner to deposit one month’s salary to the respondent authorities within a period of four weeks from date and the respondent authorities will consider the representation of the petitioner and pay the benefits to the petitioner in accordance with the representation dated 20th June, 2012 within a period of eight weeks from date as per the rules of the bank. It is made clear that this Court has not entertained the other prayers made in the writ petition. 13 17. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition being WPA 14240 of 2012 stands disposed of. In view of the aforesaid, nothing remains in CAN No. 1 of 2018 and CAN No. 2 of 2018 and the same are also accordingly disposed of. 18. There will be no order as to costs. 19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. (Sudip Deb, J.) S.M.