Karnataka High Court
Sri T G Thimmareddy vs The Chairman, Karnataka Gramin Bank on 5 December, 2022
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.23598/2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.T.G.THIMMAREDDY
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O RAMESHWARAPPA
RETIRED MANAGER
R/AT C/O RI.RAKESH KUMAR
No.631, FIRST FLOOR
FIRST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, R H C S LAYOUT
2ND STAGE, SRI GANDHADA KAVALU
BANGALORE-560091. ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.GEETA R. SHINDHE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN,
KARNATAKA GRAMIN BANK
HEAD OFFICE, 32, SANGANAKAL ROAD,
GANDHI NAGARA, BELLARY 583103
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA GRAMIN BANK,
HEAD OFFICE, 32, SANGANAKAL ROAD,
GANDHI NAGARA, BELLARY 583103
3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
KARNATAKA GRAMIN BANK,
HEAD OFFICE, 32, SANGANAKAL ROAD,
GANDHI NAGARA, BELLARY 583103
4. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES,
2
JEEVAN DEEP BUILDINGS,
PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI 110001
5. NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURA
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
HEAD OFFICE, NATIONAL BANK FOR
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
HEAD OFFICE, PLOT C-24,
G-BLOCK, BANDRA KURALA COMPLEX,
BKC ROAD, BANDRA EAST,
MUMBAI 400051,
THROUGH ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
6. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE,
NO. 112, JC ROAD,
BANGALORE 560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T.P.MUTHANNA, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.JEEVAN.K., ASG., FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERS DTD.23.8.2021 AND DTD.8.10.2021 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT No.3 AND RESPONDENT No.2 MARKED AT
ANNEXURE-P AND R RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner, a retired employee of the second respondent - Karnataka Gramin Bank is before this Court praying for a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-P bearing No.HO:HRW:STF:PEN:2060:2021-22 dated 23.08.2021; Annexure-R bearing 3 No.HO:HRW:STF:PENSION:2289:2021-22 dated 08.10.2021; and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revise the basic pension of the petitioner by taking into account the service of the petitioner in clerical cadre for the purpose of basic pension and to recalculate the pension and to pay arrears of pension etc.,
2. Heard the learned counsel Smt.Geeta R Shindhe for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri.T.P.Muthanna for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Assistant Solicitor General Sri.Jeevan.K for respondent No.4. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner joined the respondent bank on daily wage to clerical duties on 07.04.1979. He was appointed as Clerical Trainee vide order dated 09.06.1979. Thereafter, the respondent - bank appointed the petitioner as Probationary Junior Clerk with effect from 16.09.1979. In pursuance to 4 notification for direct recruitment of Field Supervisor, the petitioner applied. The petitioner was selected and was appointed as Probationary Field Supervisor under order dated 06.05.1989. the petitioner on his selection and appointment as Probationary Field Supervisor submitted his resignation to the post of Clerk/Senior Clerk on 30.05.1989 and on acceptance of his resignation, the petitioner joined the respondent-Bank as Probationary Field Supervisor in terms of the order dated 01.06.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to Scale-II post and petitioner superannuated from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2017. The petitioner was sanctioned pension in terms of the Basic Pension Scheme. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent-Bank sanctioned the pension without counting his past service in the clerical cadre between 1979 to 1989. The petitioner submitted representation requesting the Bank to count his past service and to revise the pension. The said request was rejected by the Bank on 23.08.2021 5 and thereafter the petitioner got issued a legal notice which was also answered rejecting the petitioner's request by communication dated 08.10.2021. Challenging the same, petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel Smt.Geeta R. Shindhe for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-Bank as Clerk in the year 1979 and subsequently he was promoted as Senior Clerk on 22.06.1985. Thereafter in pursuance to the recruitment conducted by Banking Service Recruitment Board (BSRB), the petitioner was selected and appointed as Probationary Field Supervisor. The petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 31.05.2017. The petitioner's pension was fixed taking note of service from 1989 to 2017. The petitioner's service as Clerk in the respondent-Bank is not counted for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to O.M. issued by the Government of India dated 26.12.2013 (Annexure-M) to contend that it was only 6 a technical resignation to join as Probationary Field Supervisor in the same Bank. When the petitioner was working in the same Bank as Clerk and on his selection as Probationary Field Supervisor, to join the said post, the petitioner submitted his resignation to the post of Clerk and joined the Bank as Probationary Field Supervisor. It was only a formality and the petitioner continued to serve the same Bank. Since the petitioner continued to serve in the same Bank, the petitioner would be entitled for counting his past service.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel Sri.T.P.Muthanna would submit that the petitioner resigned as Clerk on his selection to the post of Probationary Field Supervisor conducted by the BSRB. It is not the respondent-Bank which recruited the petitioner as Probationary Field Supervisor. He was selected by the BSRB and was allotted to the respondent-Bank. In terms of Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 2018 (for short 2018 Rules), the petitioner would not be entitled to 7 count his past service for fixation of pension. He invites attention of this Court to Regulation 20 of 2018 Rules and submits that when an employee resigns from the Bank, he forfeited his entire past service. Therefore, as the petitioner resigned as Clerk from the respondent- Bank, he forfeited his entire past service and he would not be entitled to count earlier service as Clerk for qualifying service. Further, the learned counsel would also submit that the reliance placed on Annexure-M by the learned counsel for the petitioner would have no application to the respondent-Bank, since it has its own Regulation regulating the pension. Annexure-M is issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to, "Whether the service rendered by the petitioner as Clerk from 1979 to 1989 would count for pension under 2018 Regulations?" 8
The answer to the above point would be in the Negative for the following reasons:
Admittedly, the petitioner joined the respondent- Bank as Clerk in the year 1979 and he resigned on 31.05.1989 as Clerk to join the respondent-Bank as Probationary Field Supervisor, in pursuance to the recruitment conducted by the BSRB. The petitioner resigned from the post of Clerk to join the higher post in the respondent-Bank. 2018 Regulations governs the respondent and employees of the respondent-Bank with regard to their pension. Regulation 20(1) of 2018 Regulations reads as follows:
"20. Forfeiture of service.-
(1) Resignation not amounting to voluntary retirement or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail for forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pension under these regulations.
The above Regulation makes it abundantly clear that if an employee resigns, he would forfeit his entire past 9 service and consequently shall not qualify for pension under the Regulations.
7. Regulation 13 of 2018 Regulations provides for qualifying service for pension. Chapter VI of 2018 Regulations provides for qualifying service for pension and it is a code in itself for the purpose of determining pension and qualifying service. The case of the petitioner would not fall under Chapter VI of 2018 Regulations to count the service rendered by him as Clerk from 1979 to 1989 for the purpose of fixation of pension. When the 2018 Regulation itself is clear, the petitioner cannot without challenging the said Regulation, contend that he would be entitled for counting his past service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on Regulation 54 to say that wherever the pension Regulation would not contain any specific provision, the provision contained in Central Civil Services Pension 10 Rules would be applicable to the employees of the Bank. Since the resignation or technical resignation is not defined in the 2018 Regulations, learned counsel would submit that the O.M. dated 26.12.2013 would apply and the resignation of the petitioner is to be considered as technical resignation. Such service rendered by petitioner as Clerk from 1979 to 1989 shall be counted for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. A reading of Regulation 54 of 2018 Regulations makes it clear that, in case of doubt, in the matter of application of 2018 Regulations, having regard to other provisions in the Central Civil Services Rules, 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 applicable for Central Government employees with such exceptions and modifications as the Bank, after consultation of Canara Bank being the Sponsor Bank and the National Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central Government, may from time to time, determine.
11
9. No material is placed on record to demonstrate that the Bank in terms of Regulation 54 has issued notification making provision for application of other Central Enactment/Rules to the employees of the respondent-Bank.
No merit in the writ petition and accordingly stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC.