Unauthorised absence without leave is non-pensionable and may justify acceptance of resignation.

The respondent’s predecessor was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier with the State Bank of India on 11.07.1985 and served in various branches. From September 2003 onwards, she remained absent from duty for extended periods, allegedly due to illness, while residing first in Mumbai and subsequently in Vienna, Austria, where her husband was stationed. The Bank’s records showed a total unauthorised absence of 1,391 days

The Bank issued communications dated 16.06.2006, 11.12.2006 and 14.09.2007 requiring her to resume duty and warning of disciplinary action. In response, she tendered her resignation on 06.01.2007, reiterated it on 28.09.2007, and later submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 02.11.2007

The Bank accepted her resignation by decision dated 30.11.2011, communicated on 07.12.2011, with effect from 07.11.2007, and settled her terminal benefits

She challenged the acceptance of resignation and the denial of pensionary benefits in W.P. No. 13678 of 2016. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 16.08.2023, holding that the Bank had effectively condoned her absence and could not exclude the condoned period from pensionable service

The Bank preferred the present writ appeal. During the appeal, the original writ petitioner died and was represented by her legal heirs

Whether the Bank was justified in accepting the employee’s resignation after her prolonged unauthorised absence and repeated failure to resume duty or provide a satisfactory explanation?

Whether the period of unauthorised absence could be counted as pensionable service under Rule 21(i) of the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules?

Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in directing that the period allegedly condoned by the Bank be included for determining pensionary benefits?

The Court applied Rule 21(i) of the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, which provides that leave without salary or absence without leave does not count as pensionable service; a period of suspension counts only to the extent declared pensionable by the competent authority at the time of reinstatement or retirement

The Court held that unauthorised absence is consequently excluded from pensionable service unless the competent authority specifically declares it pensionable

It also relied on Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. v. Om Prakash, 2024 INSC 870, where the Supreme Court held that abandonment of service through prolonged absence without informing the employer may justify appropriate action by the employer and may disentitle the employee to equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution

The Division Bench found that the employee had remained absent for 1,391 days and had received several communications requiring her to report for duty. Despite these opportunities, she neither resumed service nor furnished a satisfactory explanation for her prolonged and irregular absence; even her resignation and subsequent communications did not adequately address the absence

Applying Rule 21(i), the Court held that unauthorised absence could not automatically be treated as pensionable service, particularly when there had been no reinstatement or specific declaration by the competent authority that the period was pensionable

The Court further held that the Bank’s conduct amounted to extending repeated opportunities and ultimately taking a reasonable administrative decision after the employee failed to return to duty. In light of Om Prakash, the prolonged unexplained absence could be treated as abandonment of service, and the employee was not entitled to equitable interference under Article 226

The Court held that the period of unauthorised absence was not pensionable under Rule 21(i), and that the Bank’s action was fair, reasonable and not liable to interference. No order was made as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed