Delhi High Court Orders Bank to Pay Manager for Foiling 1998 Gunpoint Robbery

3:04 AM ETDeveloping

Health Desk

In Short: Delhi High Court has ordered a bank to pay compensation to a manager who risked his life during a 1998 gunpoint robbery, after a 28-year legal battle.

Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Surjit Singh, a Senior Manager with Punjab & Sind Bank, who risked his life to thwart a 1998 gunpoint robbery at the Roshan Pura, Najafgarh Branch. The court granted Singh compensation and an apology after a long legal fight.

The bank initially argued that Singh's actions were part of his ordinary duties and did not qualify for extraordinary bravery. However, the court described his conduct as demonstrating 'presence of mind and unprecedented courage,' and ordered the bank to pay him over Rs 2.50 lakh along with interest.

During the robbery, Singh triggered the emergency alarm and physically blocked the exit, forcing the robbers to abandon the loot and escape with only Rs 75,000. The bank's security guards had surrendered their weapons, allowing the robbers to loot the cash freely.

Singh had been recommended for an out-of-turn promotion and an award by his superiors, but the bank rejected his claim, stating that he was 'only performing his duty.' The court's decision highlights the importance of recognizing such acts of bravery in the workplace.

What's still developing

According to the Bank, his actions were what a reasonable and prudent manager would have done in those circumstances and therefore could not be characterised as extraordinary bravery.
He approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226 seeking benefits under the Government of India Guidelines dated 14 October 1991 concerning bank employees who actively resist robberies and terrorist attacks.
Despite repeated representations, the Bank rejected his claim on the ground that he had not “actively resisted” the robbery.
The principal issue was whether Surjit Singh’s conduct during the armed robbery constituted “active resistance” within Clause (vi) of the Government of India Guidelines dated 14 October 1991.
The Court also considered whether the Bank was justified in treating his actions as merely part of his ordinary managerial duties and consequently refusing the reward and other benefits contemplated by the Guidelines.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was acting on the plea of the bank manager who had requested and had been recommended for “out-of-turn” promotion as per the 1991 guidelines of the Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), regarding “compensation to bank employees who actively resist bank robberies and terrorist attacks on banks” but was denied by the bank, saying that he was “only performing his duty”.
On the fateful day of December 28, 1998, at about 1 pm, an “unprecedented incident” of robbery occurred at the bank when five robbers carrying automatic weapons entered the bank, threatened the staff and customers and started looting the Rs 40 lakh cash that was lying at the counter and in the chest.
Rather than trying to stop the robbers, the armed guards surrendered themselves, handed over their weapons and allowed the robbers “a free hand in looting the cash from the bank”.

Sources

Raw Law link