Karnataka High Court
Smt. Umadevi D/O Shivputrappa ... vs The State Bank Of India on 26 March, 2019
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26 T H DAY OF MARCH 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.104810/2018 [S-RES]
BETWEEN:
SMT. UMADEVI D/O SHIVPUTARAPPA MUCHANDIMATH
W/O UMESH SHIGALLIMATH,
AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS,
R/O NO.227, BUDA PLOT,
SHANTINAGAR, NEAR CONGRESS WELL,
TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(By SRI. PRAVEENKUMAR RAIKOTE AND
SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATES)
AND
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
REGION 3, LIC BUILDING,
BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE,
GOAWAYS, BELAGAVI-590011.
... RESPONDENT
(By SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING
:2:
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS WRIT
PETITION BY ISSUING A DIRECTION TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED LETTER AT ANNEXURE-"E" DATED 20.06.2018
VIDE NO.RM III-16-436 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
HEREIN; B) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY ALL
TERMINAL BENEFITS INCLUDING LEAVE ENCASHMENT, AS
ON DATE OF RETIREMENT ON 30.06.2016 AND TO PAY
REGULAR PENSION THEREAFTER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner claiming to be a member of Beda-Jangam Community, which is enlisted in the Schedule Caste Order 1950, as amended in 1978, joined the services of the respondent- Bank pressing into service her Schedule Caste Certificate, having been appointed on 01.10.1978. Having put in a long & spotless service of about 38 years, the petitioner retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016.
:3:
2. Before retirement, the petitioner's social status as a member of Schedule Caste was put in challenge and that the jurisdictional District Caste Verification Committee (for short 'DCVC') vide order dated 16.04.2001 has held the Caste Certificate invalid, accordingly it declined to issue the Caste Validity Certificate. There was a challenge to the said Order under Section 4D of the Karnataka SC/ST & Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990 before the Commissioner for Social Welfare and that the same was dismissed for non- prosecution.
3. Since the Respondent-Bank had not paid the terminal benefits despite retirement on the ground that the Petitioner's caste status was in question, he had moved this Court in W.P.No.111233/2005 & W.P.No.103277/2006 and this Court vide common Judgment dated :4: 19.02.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure-B had inter alia directed the Respondent-Bank to consider Petitioner's claim for the grant of terminal benefits in terms it's Circular. The dismissal of Petitioner's caste Appeal on the ground of non-prosecution was also set at naught restoring the same to the Board, of Commissioner for Social Welfare. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:
"Then under such circumstances, when the case has not been adjudicated on merits, this Court cannot issue any direction as prayed for under I.A .1 of 2018. However, petitioner is at liberty to give a representation to the Bank authorities by referring to Annexure-U and other records to release the pensionary and terminal benefits which are due to her. I n that light, on the said circular or on the letters, if, the bank authorities want to take any decision, it is left to the respondents."
4. The Respondent Bank by the order dated 20.06.2018 at Annexure-E having :5: considered the claim of the petitioner denied terminal benefits again stating that the Circular dated 12.05.2017 at Annexure-
D does not avail to the benefit of petitioner. The same is put in challenge in this writ petition, which is being resisted by the Respondent-Bank by filing the Statement of Objections.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Pension is not a bounty as held by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India (1983)1 SCC 305 and therefore, a retired employee cannot be denied pension, when it is the only source of her livelihood, especially when the her long and spotless service to the Bank is not in dispute. :6:
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, every employee who has peacefully retired from service having put in a qualifying service for the grant of terminal benefits cannot be asked to wait endlessly and contingently on the out come of the appeal. The Petitioner does not have any other source of income than the terminal benefits that has withheld by the Respondent-Bank. Permitting the Bank to continue to withheld the same would virtually amount to taking away the means of livelihood of the Petitioner and therefore is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the case of OLGA TELLIS AND OTHERS VS. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS (AIR 1986 SC 180).
:7:
7. Per contra learned panel counsel for the respondent-Bank opposes the grant of prayer stating that, the Apex Court time and again has held that gaining entry to Public Service on the basis of false Caste Certificate is a fraud, not only against the employer but also against the eligible candidates of genuine Caste status, who have been deprived of the job which otherwise they would have got. He submits that the caste status of the petitioner is in challenge and DCVC has denied caste validity Certificate which has been admittedly in challenge in an Appeal and therefore, till that appeal is decided, there should not be a direction to pay any terminal benefits. He banks upon the decision of the Apex Court in the Case of Chairman & Managing Director FCI Vs. Jagadeesh Bahira AIR 2017 SC 327. :8:
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned panel counsel for the respondent-Bank. I have perused the petition papers and the decisions cited at the Bar. I have also perused the objection statement filed by the respondent-Bank.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner has put in a long and spotless service of about 38 years in the Respondent's Bank. Her Caste Appeal has been pending before the Appellate Authority and that the same will take its own time for being disposed off on merits. This Court takes cognizance of the fact that many such appeals have been pending before the Appellate Authority constituted under the Provisions of 1990 Act for more than a decade.
10. Petitioner's Caste Appeal has been kept pending despite observation of this Court :9: in the earlier round of litigation suggesting expeditious disposal. Therefore, there is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she cannot be made to wait ad infinitum without any means of livelihood for holding her body and soul together. Even a hardened convict for heinous offence cannot be compelled to starve to death in our legal system, in view of wide interpretation placed by the Apex Court on Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER VS. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT [(1998) 7 SCC 392] has recognized even the right of convicts serving the Jail Sentence to the reasonable wages observing that non payment amounts to begar prohibited by Article 23 of the Constitution. : 10 :
11. The Circular dated 12.05.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-D is evolved as a matter of policy by the respondent-Bank for governing the cases like the one at hands. Paragraph 4(a) and (c) of the said Circular read as under:
"4 (a) In respect of employees who have retired on superannuation and whose verification of community status is still pending, Bank shall release the terminal benefits as they have served the Bank. Bank shall not hold them at fault for non-verification of their community status.
(b) ......
(c) If the Caste/Community Certificate is declared as invalid or fake/forged before the retirement of the said employee, the Bank may take appropriate action as per the law.": 11 :
12. The intent and content of the above Circular are for the benefit of the employees like the petitioner who have retired from service having put in long and spotless service. The object is to ensure that the retirees do not starve to death, the pension being the only source of livelihood, in the absence of any material proving the contrary.
13. It is also true that, an unscrupulous employee who place fraud on the system or on the society by staking false claim for social status should not be shown any sympathy. The Apex Court in the case of Jagadeesh Balaram Bahira (Supra) has held that the entry to the public employment or to the Educational Institution on the basis of false social status is null and void ab initio, is also true. But, that ratio applies after the Petitioner fails in her : 12 : challenge in the pending appeal. If nothing is provided for her sustenance, she may starve to death or she may become a victim of social evil. Therefore, some provision for her maintenance needs to be made by balancing the competing claims of the contending parties, lest something bad should happen to the retiree in the evening of her life.
14. Although, the Respondent Bank cannot be directed to settle all the terminal benefits of the Petitioner, the justice of the case requires that it should periodically pay 75% of the pension which otherwise was payable under the service Rules, after retaining all other terminal benefits subject to the orders in the Caste Appeal.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Certiorari : 13 : issues quashing the impugned endorsement dated 20.06.2018 at Annexure-E; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent-Bank to finalize and retain the terminal benefits of the petitioner, but pay only 75% of the monthly pension accruing due periodically from the month of March 2019, subject to the outcome of petitioner's Caste Appeal.
It is needless to mention that, all the retained terminal benefits shall be released to the Petitioner if she succeeds in her Caste Appeal and gets her social status of Scheduled Caste is restored.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGK