Kerala High Court
A.K. Kasyapan Namboothiri vs Canara Bank on 9 March, 2026
WP(C) NO. 30809 OF 2024 1
2026:KER:20782
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 30809 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
A.K. KASYAPAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O. KESAVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AMANAKARAMANA,
NADUVATHUPARA P.O., PERINOTTUKURUSSI, PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678574
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SHRI.C.RAMAN
SHRI. ANOOP KRISHNA
SRI.ANAND SANKAR
SMT.REGIMOL M.K.
SMT.PRATHEEKSHA RAJ
SMT.JENNY THANKAM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 CANARA BANK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HEAD OFFICE, 112, J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE,
PIN - 560002
2 THE GENERAL MANAGER,
CANARA BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, SPENCER JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695039
3 THE SECRETARY,
CANARA BANK STAFF PROVIDENT FUND, 14,
M.G. ROAD, HEAD OFFICE, BANGALORE,
PIN - 560001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
WP(C) NO. 30809 OF 2024 2
2026:KER:20782
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SHRI.RAJA KANNAN
SMT.POOJA MENON
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 30809 OF 2024 3
2026:KER:20782
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was an employee of the 1 st respondent bank, who joined service on 07.01.1986 and took retirement under the Canara Bank Employees Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000, with effect from 17.03.2001.
2. The petitioner preferred O.P. No.32710 of 2002, making a claim for pension, which was rejected by judgment dated 29.07.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred W.A. No.1567 of 2003, wherein the Division Bench found that it was not in dispute that the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement under the scheme, but he did not have a minimum of 15 years of qualifying service to his credit to claim pension. Thus, considering the question as to whether the bank was justified in deducting from the qualifying service the period during which the appellant remained on leave without pay, it was held that the qualifying service after deducting the aforesaid period would be only 12 years, as found by the bank. Accordingly, for want of qualifying service of 15 years, the petitioner's claim for pension was found WP(C) NO. 30809 OF 2024 4 2026:KER:20782 untenable, and the writ appeal is dismissed.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an R.P. No.676 of 2017, which was also dismissed by judgment dated 20.01.2020.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 representation on 09.07.2020, claiming the employer's contribution to the Provident Fund (PF) along with interest. He also filed W.P. (C) No.26616 of 2020, which was disposed of by judgment dated 03.12.2020, directing the bank to consider the same, based on which Ext.P8 order was passed by the bank on 08.02.2021. The said order was again challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16372 of 2021, wherein, by judgment dated 18.08.2023, the bank was directed to consider the contention of the petitioner that rigour of the Regulations would apply only if the pension is actually paid and not merely when it is opted. This Court found that the said issue was not considered in Ext.P8 order and therefore directed the bank to reconsider the same.
5. The bank, after reconsideration, passed Ext.P10 order dated 18.04.2024 and again rejecting the claim, which is impugned in this writ petition.
WP(C) NO. 30809 OF 2024 5
2026:KER:20782
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent bank and perusing the records, I hold that the claim of the petitioner for the employer's contribution cannot be considered for more reasons than one.
7. Initially, the petitioner had claimed a pension, which was found against through Exts.P2 and P3 judgments, which have become final. As regards the claim for the employer's contribution, the bank, through the impugned order, stated as follows:-
"It is quite obvious from the contentions of the ex-employee that he had opted for the pension option after understanding the terms and conditions of the same and this is clearly visible from the option letter dated 30.11.1994 executed by Sri A K Kasyappan Namboothiri (52704) Ex-SWOA at the time of option for pension. As such there is no dispute as to the option exercised by Sri A K Kasyappan Namboothiri for pension.
In the above context, it is worth necessary to understand the purpose of Pension Scheme introduced in the Banks for a clear decision in the matter. The pension scheme was introduced in lieu of employer's contribution to the provident fund and as such the pension is a second retiral benefit in lieu of employer's contribution to the provident fund. As per the provisions of the Pension Scheme, specifically Regulation 3(3) (a), (b) and (c) which squarely applies for Sri A K Kasyappan Namboothiri herein, says that the employee should exercise the option within one hundred and twenty days and authorize the trust of the Provident Fund of the Bank to transfer the entire contribution of the Bank along WP(C) NO. 30809 OF 2024 6 2026:KER:20782 with interest accrued to the credit of the Canara Bank (Employees') Pension Fund. Sri Sri A K Kasyappan Namboothiri (52704) Ex-SWOA has exercised the same vide the above-referred letter dated 30.11.1994. Regulation 6 of the Canara Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 speaks about the mandatory functions of the Provident Fund Trust that on constitution of the Canara Bank (Employees') Pension Fund, the Provident Fund Trust shall transfer to the Canara Bank (Employees' Pension Fund the accumulated balance of the contribution of the Bank to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon up to the date of such transfer in respect of every employee. As such the Provident Fund is having a mandatory obligation to transfer the entire employer's contribution to the Pension Fund on formation of the Fund for every employee who has opted for the pension. Further Reg.4 (2) of the Canara Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 clearly states that an option exercised by an employee under Reg.3 shall be final. The regulation makes it mandatory on the part of the employee also who exercise the option for pension that once exercised is forever and an employee cannot withdraw the same at any later point of his service.
As such the pension scheme embodied in the regulation is a self supporting scheme. It is a code by itself. The bank is a contributor to the pension fund. The bank ensures availability of funds with the trustees to make due payments to the beneficiaries under the regulations. The beneficiaries are employees covered by the regulation. In a self financing scheme, a separate fund is earmarked as the scheme is not based on budgetary support. It is essentially based on adequate contributions from the members of the fund. It is for this reason that under regulation 11, every bank WP(C) NO. 30809 OF 2024 7 2026:KER:20782 is required to cause an investigation to be made by an actuary into the financial condition of the fund from time to time and depending on the deficits, the bank is required to make annual contributions to the fund. Further the Pension Fund has been formed as an irrevocable Trust wherein the corpus to the Trust shall be inclusive of the accumulated contributions of the Bank to the Provident Fund & Interest accrued thereon upto the date of such transfer in respect of the employees who had opted for Pension Scheme, the amount consisting of contributions of the Bank along with interest refunded by the employees who had retired before the notified date but who opt for pension in accordance with the provisions contained in these Regulations, the Investment in annuities or securities purchased out of the moneys of the Fund. The pension payable to the beneficiaries under the scheme would depend on Income accruing on investments and unless there is adequate corpus, the scheme may not be workable and, therefore, stipulating minimum years of qualifying service to be eligible for Pension under the Pension Fund is not illegal.
The above regulations of the Canara Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 makes it obvious that at the time of pension option an employee was given sufficient time to exercise his option for pension and on exercising the option for pension the employee cannot later withdraw the option at any point of time of his service. The only exception for the same is provided in Reg.4 (1) of Canara Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 that an employee who joins the services of the Bank on or after the notified date and at the age of thirty five years or more, may within a period of ninety days from the date of appointment can elect to forego the right of pension on which the provisions of the WP(C) NO. 30809 OF 2024 8 2026:KER:20782 pension regulation will not apply for such a person. A clear reading of the above provisions of Canara Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 and the case of Sri A K Kasyappan Namboothiri, it is apparent that at the time of pension option, Sri A K Kasyappan Namboothiri was in service and he opted for pension voluntarily and he entrusted the Provident Fund Trust to transfer his entire employer's contribution to Provident Fund with interest accrued to the Canara Bank Pension Fund vide his letter dated 30.11.1994. After that when the scheme for SVRS came, he opted for the same voluntarily and exited the services of the Bank in tune with the scheme as he was eligible to opt for VRS as per the Scheme since he had completed 40 years of age. However, as per the SVRS scheme he was not eligible for pension since he does not have the minimum qualifying service."
8. The petitioner gave the option, after understanding the conditions of the same, through a letter dated 30.11.1994, Ext.R1(a), which reads as follows:-
"I hereby declare that I have read and understood the Canara Bank Employees' (Pension) Regulations 1993 and I hereby opt to become a member of the Bank's Pension Scheme as per the provisions of the said Scheme and irrevocably authorise the Bank/Trustee of the Contributory Provident Fund to transfer the entire contribution of the Bank along with the entire interest accrued thereon to the credit of Pension Fund to be created for this purpose. I understand that I am required to contribute to the Provident Fund account at the rate determined by the Bank from time to time. I further understand that with effect from 1 st WP(C) NO. 30809 OF 2024 9 2026:KER:20782 November, 1993 the Bank shall not make any contribution to my Provident Fund Account."
9. Thus, the petitioner opted for a pension, agreeing to forego the bank's contribution towards the PF. The option itself was for a grant of pension in lieu of the bank's contribution to the PF. Having accepted the said option with open eyes, which has become final, the petitioner cannot be allowed to go back on the same. He had also unsuccessfully raised the claim for pension, which, as stated earlier, was repelled by Exts.P2 and P3 judgments.
10. The pension scheme places a mandatory obligation to transfer the entire employer's contribution to the pension fund upon the formation of the fund and for every employee who has opted for the pension. It is also to be noticed that under the scheme, the option exercised is final. Once the option for the pension is exercised in lieu of the employer's contribution, the choice is permanent, and the employee cannot withdraw the same at a later point in time and he must be treated as having waived his right to claim the employer's contribution to the provident fund. The petitioner was clearly aware of the terms of the option as well as the terms of the scheme provided under the Voluntary WP(C) NO. 30809 OF 2024 10 2026:KER:20782 Retirement Scheme. Thus, having opted for a pension which has become final and irrevocable, the present claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted. All the relevant aspects were considered in Ext.P10, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same in a judicial review.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another v. Dharam Pal Singh [2014 KHC 5196], where the issue raised was whether an employee on completing 40 years of age is entitled to receive pension. This judgment cannot be treated as an authority for the proposition that, after having been given the option and despite the entitlement of the pension being found against the petitioner, he can still claim the employer's contribution. At any rate, the question in the said case, as seen from paragraph 2 thereof, was whether the petitioner therein was entitled to a pension on completion of 40 years of age, whereas in the instant case, the entitlement of the petitioner for pension was already found against by Exts.P2 and P3 judgments.
WP(C) NO. 30809 OF 2024 11
2026:KER:20782
12. The question that was necessary for the determination of the case alone would be the 'ratio decidendi', which is binding. A precedent is authority only for what it actually decides, and the binding part of the judgment is its ratio decidendi, i.e., the principle necessary for deciding the issue before the court, while other observations constitute obiter dicta. Applying this principle to Dharam Pal Singh (supra), the ratio decidendi of that case was confined to the question whether an employee who had taken voluntary retirement was entitled to pension upon completion of 40 years of age under the pension regulations. The direction regarding refund or treatment of provident fund contribution was only a consequential observation and not the issue that required determination. Therefore, that part cannot be treated as the binding ratio of the decision since the core issue decided by the Court concerned the minimum qualifying service required for pension under the voluntary retirement scheme, and not a general right to claim the employer's provident fund contribution after pension entitlement was denied. Given the above, nothing in the above judgment supports the case of the petitioner for a claim for the employer's contribution.
WP(C) NO. 30809 OF 2024 12
2026:KER:20782
Accordingly, the writ petition fails, and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
Anu
WP(C) NO. 30809 OF 2024 13
2026:KER:20782
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 30809 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
29.07.2003 IN O.P. 32710 OF 2002
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
01.11.2004 IN WA NO. 1567 OF 2003
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
20.01.2020 IN RP NO. 676 OF 2017 IN WA
NO. 1567 OF 2003
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
04.05.2001 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
SENIOR MANAGER, CANARA BANK
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
09.07.2020 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE
RESPONDENTS
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
DATED 14.07.2020 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
03.12.2020 IN WP(C) NO. 26616 OF 2020
OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
TCO-HRM/52704/2021 DATED 08.02.2021 OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
18.08.2023 IN WP(C) NO. 16372 OF 2021
OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
18.04.2024 OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1 (A) TRUE COPY OF OPTION LETTER DATED
30.11.1994 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER,
AT THE TIME OF OPTION OF PENSION
EXHIBIT R1 (B) TRUE COPY OF HO CIR NO 235/2000 DATED
11.12.2000