Karnataka High Court
B.V. Narayana Murthy vs The Deputy General Manager on 18 February, 2016
Author: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
Bench: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WA No.2484/2015(S-R)
BETWEEN
B.V. NARAYANA MURTHY
S/O SRI B.S.VENKATESHAIAH
AGED 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1144, "NIHARIKE"
14TH CROSS, ROOPANAGAR
MYSURU-570 026
...APPELLANT
(By Sri VISWANATH N B, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
PF AND PENSION FUND DEPARTMENT
HEAD OFFICE: RAJENDRA BHAWAN
RAJENDRA PLACE
NEW DELHI-110 001
2. THE CIRCLE HEAD
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
CIRCLE OFFICE, RAHEJA TOWERS
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE CHIEF MANAGER
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
MICR CENTRE, MICR OFFICE, C.P.C.
GAYATHRI ARCADE, V.V.MARKET
3RD CROSS, MYSORE-570 001
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.12372/2011 DATED 14/07/2015.
-2-
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The writ petitioner-appellant claims pension under a scheme. A settlement was arrived at on April 27, 2010, between the employer and the employees, inter alia, asking the employees, who wanted to join the pension scheme in terms of the Joint Note, to contribute from their arrears on account of wage revision, within a period of one month.
2. Admittedly, the writ petitioner-appellant did not make such contribution. Instead, he wrote a letter to the respondents to keep his bank's PF contribution in Fixed Deposit and remit the same to the pension scheme whenever required.
3. The Hon'ble Single Judge was right in holding that this was not sufficient compliance of the requirement of the pension scheme. Accordingly, it was held that the writ petitioner was not entitled to pension.
4. We do not find any fault in the order impugned requiring interference.
-3-
5. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily.
6. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE mv