An employee deemed to have voluntarily vacated service remains entitled to applicable benefits upon depositing one month’s salary.

The petitioner was appointed as a clerk-typist in the State Bank of India on 12 November 1985 and served for approximately twenty-six years. After being transferred from the Zonal Administrative Office, Bidhannagar, to the Garulia Branch, he joined there for a few days but subsequently remained absent, citing deteriorating health and workplace difficulties.

He informed the Bank about his illness through letters dated 10 and 13 November 2010, but did not submit a formal leave application for his prolonged absence.

The Bank issued notices dated 1 February 2012, 7 March 2012 and 14 May 2012 directing him to report for duty under Clause 33 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 2 June 2005, commonly referred to as the Eighth Bipartite Settlement.

The petitioner replied through counsel and sought voluntary retirement, but did not resume duty. On 15 May 2012, the Bank informed him that he would be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his service owing to his continued absence.

The petitioner challenged the communications dated 14 May 2012 and 22 June 2012 and sought consideration of his representation dated 20 June 2012 for voluntary retirement and payment of retirement benefits.

The Bank stated that the petitioner was required to deposit one month’s salary to obtain the benefits referred to in his representation.

Whether the Bank’s notices dated 14 May 2012 and 22 June 2012, and its decision treating the petitioner as having voluntarily vacated service, were contrary to the applicable service rules.

Whether the petitioner’s prolonged unauthorised absence, despite repeated notices, attracted Clause 33(ii) of the Eighth Bipartite Settlement and resulted in deemed voluntary cessation of employment.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration of his representation dated 20 June 2012 and payment of admissible retirement benefits upon compliance with the Bank’s requirement to deposit one month’s salary.

The Court applied Clause 33, particularly Clause 33(ii), of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 2 June 2005 (Eighth Bipartite Settlement), under which an employee remaining absent without prior sanction may be required to report for duty through notices and, upon continued absence after the prescribed notices, may be deemed to have voluntarily vacated employment and have his name struck off the establishment’s rolls.

The Court also relied on the Bank’s circular dated 17 January 2009, which explained that continued absence for thirty days or more could attract notice and that absence extending to ninety days, despite the prescribed notices, could result in deemed voluntary cessation of employment.

The Court further recognised that, notwithstanding such deemed cessation, the petitioner could obtain benefits admissible under the Bank’s rules upon fulfilling the stated condition of depositing one month’s salary.

No judicial precedent or statutory provision was relied upon in the judgment.

The Court found that the petitioner had not produced evidence showing that he resumed duty after receiving any of the three notices. His replies instead acknowledged his inability to attend work and repeatedly sought voluntary retirement.

He had also failed to obtain prior leave or submit a satisfactory contemporaneous medical explanation for his prolonged absence.

Since the petitioner had joined the transferred post for a few days, the Court rejected his contention that the transfer or conduct of colleagues justified his continued non-attendance.

Applying Clause 33(ii) and the circular dated 17 January 2009, the Court held that the Bank had followed the prescribed procedure by issuing successive notices and that there was no irregularity or perversity in treating the petitioner as having voluntarily vacated his service.

However, the Court also noted that the Bank had acknowledged the petitioner’s entitlement to benefits subject to deposit of one month’s salary; therefore, the petitioner was directed to comply with that condition and the Bank was directed to consider and process his representation.

Nevertheless, it directed the petitioner to deposit one month’s salary with the Bank within four weeks and directed the Bank thereafter to consider his representation dated 20 June 2012 and pay the benefits admissible under the applicable Bank rules within eight weeks.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, along with the connected applications, without any order as to costs.