Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 14-08-2026

Case Overview

  • WA No.3387 of 2023 and CMP No.27657 of 2023 filed by State Bank of India (appellant) against the legal heirs of the deceased V. Indira Nawada (respondent). The appeal challenged the order dated 16.08.2023 in WP.No.13678 of 2016, which had granted the petitioner pensionary relief.
  • The original writ petition sought certiorari and mandamus to compel the bank to grant pension benefits and arrears, alleging that the resignation letter dated 06.01.2007 was accepted retrospectively on 07.12.2011 with effect from 07.11.2011, thereby denying pension rights.
  • The petitioner was appointed Clerk‑cum‑Cashier on 11.07.1985 at the HAL, Bangalore branch of SBI and served at various branches until 2006. She fell ill in September 2003, remained in Mumbai for treatment, then moved to Vienna, Austria, where her husband was posted.
  • She applied for leave intermittently but the bank alleges she was absent without leave from September 2003 onward. Salary continued to be paid at the Kancheepuram branch until 22.08.2006.
  • Resignation was tendered on 06.01.2007; the bank accepted it on 07.12.2011, back‑dating it to 07.11.2011. The petitioner later sought reconsideration and voluntary retirement, but the bank maintained its stance.
  • The bank’s counter‑affidavit presented a detailed tabulation of unauthorized absences:
  • 01.09.2003 – 31.03.2004: 178 days
  • 01.04.2004 – 30.06.2004 and 20.07.2004: 101 days (total 279 days)
  • Additional periods at Kancheepuram branch amounting to 1,112 days
  • Total unauthorized absence: 1,391 days
  • Notices were issued to the petitioner on 16.06.2006 and 11.12.2006 warning of disciplinary action and indicating her continuous absence while staying in Vienna. Further notice on 14.09.2007 demanded her reporting within three days.
  • The petitioner’s communications (resignation letter, request for PF, voluntary retirement application, inquiry about re‑joining) did not address the unauthorized absence.
  • The Single Judge’s order of 16.08.2023 had set aside the bank’s letters and directed pension benefits, reasoning that the bank could not “put a rider” on its earlier condonation of absence.
  • The appellants relied on Rule 21(i) of the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, which states that periods of leave without leave salary or unauthorized absence do not count as pensionable service unless declared pensionable at reinstatement.
  • The Court referenced Supreme Court judgment Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others v. Om Prakash (2024 INSC 870), emphasizing that abandonment of service without informing the employer justifies termination and precludes equitable relief.

Final Outcome

  • The Madras High Court set aside the Single Judge’s order dated 16.08.2023, allowing the writ appeal.
  • It upheld the bank’s acceptance of the petitioner’s resignation, confirming that the 1,391 days of unauthorized absence disqualify her from pensionary benefits.
  • No order as to costs was made, and the connected civil miscellaneous petition was closed.

Topics: Pension Litigation, Employment Law