Karnataka High Court
Vijaya Gopal vs The Chairman And Managing Director on 31 May, 2018
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.47230/2012 (S-R)
C/W
WP NOs.38413, 42112/2011 & 33430/2013 (S-R)
WP NO.47230/2012
BETWEEN:
VIJAYA GOPAL
S/O LATE SRIKISHAN
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
16-11-469/26
MOOSARAMBAGH
HYDERABAD-500036
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: M P KUNJU, ADV FOR
SRI:M/S MPK ASSTS.)
WP NO.38413/2011
BETWEEN:
M PAREETHU KUNJU
S/O LATE P MYTHEEN KUNJU
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT HOUSE NO.E 101
AAKRUTHI SILVERLINE
27TH MAIN, (NEAR ELECTRIC POWER
2
STATION) HSR LAYOUT SECTOR 2
BANGALORE 560 102
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: C C THOMAS, ADV)
WP NO.42112/2011
BETWEEN:
KATPITIA VISTASP EDULJI
S/O EDULJI P KATPITIA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
D.NO.17/22/1548, SAFNA
BEHIND E.P.F.OFFICE
S.L.MATHIAS ROAD
HIGHLANDS, MANGALORE-575 002
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: M P KUNJU, ADV)
WP NO.33430/2013
BETWEEN:
TITUS MATHEW
S/O LATE M T MATHEW
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
H NO.32, YAMUNA COLONY
KUDAPPANAKUNNU P O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI:M P KUNJU, ADV)
3
AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
CORPORATION BANK HEAD OFFICE
MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD
PANDESHWAR
MANGALORE-575001
2. THE SECRETARY
CORPORATION BANK (EMPLOYEES)
PENSION FUND
CORPORAION BANK HEAD OFFICE
MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD
PANDESHWAR
MANGALORE-575001
3. THE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
BANKING DIVISION
JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING
PARLIAMENT STREET
NEW DELHI-110001
... RESPONDENTS
(COMMON IN ALL THE CASES)
(BY MISS:SNEHA BALAKRISHNAN, ADV FOR
M/S SUNDARSWAMY AND RAMDAS, ADV FOR R1 & 2,
SRI:B PRAMOD, CGC FOR R3)
THESE WPs ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 17.02.2011, VIDE ANNEXURE-G (WP NO.47230/2012),
DATED 13.07.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-E (WP NO.38413/2011),
DATED 20.05.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-E (WP NO.42112/2011)
AND DATED 15.05.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-E (WP
NO.33430/2013) PASSED BY THE R1 BANK; DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO ADD 5 YEARS OF NOTIONAL SERVICE TO THE
QUALIFYING SERVICE AS REQUIRED UNDER REGULATION 26 &
4
FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CALCULATE & RE-FIX
PENSION BENEFITS FROM THE DATE OF RETIREMENT
TOGETHER WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A FROM
THE DATE OF RETIREMENT TILL THE AMOUNTS ARE PAID TO
PETITIONER.
THESE WPs COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners in all these petitions are assailing the impugned endorsements dated 17.02.2011 vide Annexure-G (in WP No.47230/2012), dated 13.07.2011 vide Annexure-E (in WP No.38413/2011), dated 20.05.2011 vide Annexure-E (in WP No.42112/2011) and dated 15.05.2013 vide Annexure-E (in WP No.33430/2013). In that light, petitioners are seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to add 5 years of notional service to the qualifying service as required under Regulation 26 and further direct the respondents to calculate and re-fix the pension benefits from the date of retirement together with interest as claimed in the petitions.
T
2. These petitions at an earlier point had been dismissed by an order dated 12.03.2015, since at that point, the 5 order passed in WA No.18082/2011 had held the decision against the petitioners in a similar case. However, this court had indicated that if the order passed in WA No.18082/2011 is set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court, these petitions would arise for consideration on restoration and accordingly these petitions have been restored for consideration. For the purpose of taking note of the factual aspects, the case as contained in WP No.47230/2012 is taken note.
3. The petitioner was working in the respondent-bank and had retired from the service. The petitioner is claiming the benefit of pension and in that regard, a request has been made by the petitioner to the respondents seeking extension of the benefit of additional qualifying service and notional benefits as contemplated under Regulation 26 of the Corporation Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. The respondents through communication dated 17.02.2011 have intimated the petitioner that the case of petitioner does not come under the purview of the said Regulation, since according to the respondents, the petitioner was recruited after the notification of 6 the pension Regulation 1995. The petitioners, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved are before this Court.
4. It is pertinent to note that the pension Regulation which is similar to the pension Regulation herein is also available to the employees of several other banks and in that regard, the employees who were aggrieved by the action of the concerned banks in not applying Regulation 26, more particularly, that of Syndicate Bank Employees' Pension Regulation 1995 were before different High Courts. In one of the cases, learned single Judge of Madras High Court had considered the matter in detail and held with regard to the applicability of Regulation 26-C of that Bank and had directed that the benefit be granted to the petitioners therein. However, the Hon'ble Division Bench of that Court had set aside the order which ultimately resulted in an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.9371-9374/2017. In the said proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court having taken note of the detailed consideration made by the learned Single Judge had thereafter arrived at a conclusion that the view taken by the Division Bench of that 7 Court including the decision of the Judicature at Allahabad and Lucknow Bench is not justified and accordingly set aside the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and upheld the decision taken by the learned Single Judge. In that circumstance, the matter is concluded holding that the benefit of Regulation 26 is to be provided to the officers concerned and the benefit of additional service is to be extended.
5. In that view of the matter, the reasons as assigned by the respondents herein through communication impugned herein holding that Regulation 26 would not be applicable to the petitioners would not be justified. However, since the Regulation 26 provides certain other criteria based on which, the consideration is required to be made if the officers satisfy such requirement, the benefit is required to be extended. Therefore, at this juncture, what is necessary to be held herein is that the case of petitioners is also guided by Regulation 26 of the Corporation Bank (Employees') Pension Regulation 1995 as it is applicable to them and if the petitioners satisfy the other requirements as contained in the said Regulation, the petitioners 8 would also be entitled to the benefit to be provided in their favour. Hence, the examination limited to that aspect is required to be made by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the case of petitioners herein.
6. To conclude the same, the impugned communications dated 17.02.2011 vide Annexure-G (in WP No.47230/2012), dated 13.07.2011 vide Annexure-E (in WP No.38413/2011), dated 20.05.2011 vide Annexure-E (in WP No.42112/2011) and dated 15.05.2013 vide Annexure-E (in WP No.33430/2013) are quashed. It is held that the Regulation 26 of the Corporation Bank (Employees') Pension Regulation 1995 would apply to the case of petitioners herein as well. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall examine as to whether the petitioners satisfy the remaining requirements as contained in the Regulation and a decision be taken in the matter. Such decision shall be taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2 as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Needless to mention, if the petitioners satisfy the said requirements, benefit in favour of 9 the petitioners, i.e., the disbursement of the same shall also be made in an expeditious manner.
The petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-