Union Bank of India Vs Presiding Officer (Bombay High Court)
In the case of Union Bank of India Vs Presiding Officer, the Bombay High Court addressed the issue of voluntary retirement under the Union Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995. The employee, who had been absent from work since 1995, applied for voluntary retirement on November 28, 1995. Despite the bank’s refusal to approve his application, the court noted that the bank failed to communicate its rejection within the three-month period mandated by the pension regulations. According to Clause 29 of the regulations, if the employer does not refuse within the specified time, the employee is deemed to have retired.
The bank argued that since the employee had abandoned his residence and was unreachable, it had no obligation to send a refusal notice, claiming that such an action would be a mere formality. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the bank’s failure to adhere to the statutory requirement could not be justified. The Court emphasized that the statutory process must be followed strictly, and failure to do so could not benefit the bank. Furthermore, the court ruled that the employee’s voluntary retirement request was deemed accepted after the three-month period, as no written communication was sent by the bank to the employee within that time frame.
