New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ticked
off a physically challenged person for "terrorising" his
employer State Bank of Patiala by initiating a series of
judicial proceedings against its officers after he was denied
an "exit-option scheme."
"The respondent(employee), though retired in
accordance with the rules of the bank, using the tag of
'person with disability' has attempted to virtually terrorise
the bank and its senior officers by initiating a series of
proceedings and securing ex-parte interim orders by
misrepresenting the facts," a bench of Justices R V Raveendran
and K S Radhakrishnan said in an order.
The apex court said the Chief Commissioner for
Disabilities and the Allahabad High Court had also acted
erroneously by passing orders in favour of the employee Vinesh
Kumar Bhasin without proper application of mind.
Bhasin, a physically challenged person after 30 years
of service with the bank, was to superannuate on November 30,
2006. The bank had set up a "exit option scheme" for
demotivated employee to voluntarily retire from the
organisation with certain extra benefits.
Bhasin, a fortnight before his superannuation, applied
for the scheme and the same was turned down as he was already
due for retirement and rules did no permit it. He then filed a
complaint with the Chief Commissioner for Disabilities who
directed the bank not to retire him until further
orders.
The employee then moved the Allahabad High Court which
issued a notice to the bank and passed an ex parte order on
January 12, 2007, directing it to comply with the orders of
the Chief Commissioner.
After a few days, Bhasin again went to the high court
complaining that the bank authorities were not complying with
the direction.
The high court then issued contempt notices to the bank
manager Arvind Bhushan Pandey and others, after which the
latter appealed in the apex court.
Upholding the appeal, the apex court said the Chief
Commissioner for Disabilities neither considered the fact that
Bhasin had applied for the exit policy just a few days before
superannuation, nor did he have the power to pass a direction
not to retire the employee until further orders.
"The Chief Commissioner also overlooked and ignored the
fact that as authority functioning under the Disabilities Act,
he has no power or jurisdiction to issue a direction to the
employer not to retire an employee," the bench said.
The apex court also said high courts should not issue ex
parte order in service matters or mechanically issue contempt
notices.
"We are of the view that the contempt petition was
premature. We are also of the view that the high court at
the stage of issuing notice could not have assumed that there
was wilful disobedience," the apex court said.
However, the apex court granted Bhasin the liberty to
pursue appropriate remedy under the law to prove that he is a
person with disability and that the bank had discriminated
against him vis-a-vis the exit policy.
PTI
First Published: Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 21:47