Karnataka High Court
Vasudeva Sheena Karkera vs Bank Of Baroda on 7 July, 2017
Author: Raghvendra S.Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
Writ Petition No.11446/2014 (S-RES)
Between :
Vasudeva Sheena Karkera
S/o. Late Sheena,
Aged about 66 years,
No.C-1, No.38, Abhimani Apartments,
2nd Main, 6th Cross,
Agrahara Dasarahalli,
Magadi Road,
Bangalore-560079. ...Petitioner
(By Sri N. Manohar, Advocate)
And :
1. Bank of Baroda
Head Office at HRM Department,
Baroda House, Mandvi,
Baroda-390006,
Represented by Chairman &
Managing Director.
2. The General Manager
HRM & HR, Bank of Baroda
Baroda Corporate Office,
C-26, G. Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai-400051.
3. The Deputy General Manger
Bank of Baroda, Regional Office,
No.72, 3rd Floor, Nitesh Lexinton Avenue,
Brigade Road,
Bangalore-560001. ...Respondents
2
(By Sri N. Abhilash Raju &
Smt. Sahana Devanathan, Advocate for
M/s. Sundarswamy & Ramdas, Advocate for R1-R3)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent No.2 to accept
the pension cost of Rs.5,86,451/- vide Annexure-B for enable to
availed the pensionary benefit to the petitioner for rest of his
retirement life and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
Group this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER
The petitioner has made the following prayer before this Court :
(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction to the respondent No.2 to accept the pension cost of Rs.5,86,451/- vide Annexure-B for enable to availed the pensionary benefit to the petitioner for rest of his retirement life.
(b) Pass any such other order/s and grant relief that this Honorable Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case with exemplary costs in the interest of equity and justice.3
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Special Assistant in the Bank of Baroda, Byrasandra Branch, Bengaluru. Having reached the age of sixty, he retired from the services of the said Bank on 31.08.2007. By the letter dated 28.8.2007, the petitioner was informed by the Bank to submit the prescribed forms, duly filled, to the Bank, so that the Bank would settle the terminal benefits. Subsequently, by the letter dated 1.12.2010, the Bank informed the petitioner that by Resolution dated 11.11.2010, the Bank is authorized to set off the commutation amount, and the pension arrears from 27.11.2009 to 31.10.2010, against the amount due to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.5,86,451/-, in case he wanted to take the benefit of Pension Scheme. On 10.12.2010, the petitioner sent a letter to the Bank, wherein he requested for extension of loan of Rs.5,86,451/- on the existing loan granted by the Bank upon his property. However, according to the petitioner, he could not mobilize the amount of Rs.5,86,451/-. Hence, the present petition before this Court. 4
3. Mr. N. Manohar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that since the petitioner has retired from the service, the benefit of Bank of Baroda Employee's (Pension) Regulation, 1995, should be granted to the petitioner even if the petitioner has failed to deposit the above mentioned amount.
Secondly, since the petitioner had already requested the Bank to extend the loan facility, the same should have been done by the Bank. However, the Bank has failed to do so. Therefore, the prayer made before this Court for directing the respondent No.2, the General Manager of the Bank, to accept Rs.5,86,541/- from the petitioner, and to grant him the benefit of the pension under the Regulations.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Abhilash Raju, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that according to Pension Scheme floated by the Bank, it was imperative that the employees should deposit the amount within a period of thirty days. Since a corpus had to be created, which would be sufficient to pay pension amount to the employees, time was of essence for depositing the said amount. Since the petitioner 5 failed to deposit the required amount within the stipulated time frame, he is neither entitled to the prayer made before this Court, nor entitled to the benefit of the Pension Scheme. In order to buttress his plea that the Scheme is time bound, and in case the amount were not deposited within the time frame, the employee would be disentitled from the Pension Scheme, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of B. V. Narayana Murthy v. The Deputy General Manager, Punjab National Bank And Others (Writ Petition No.12372/2011, decided by this Court on 14th July 2015), and in the case of Jai Singh B. Chauhan v. Punjab National Bank And Others (AIR 2005 SC 3134).
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the Scheme.
6. A bare perusal of the Scheme clearly reveals that the petitioner would fall in the Category-B mentioned in the Scheme. Category-B of the Scheme is as under :
" B. Who were in service of the Bank prior to 29th September 1995 and retired after that 6 date and prior to the date of this Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note i.e. 27th April 2010 I. Such employees shall exercise an option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer to become a member of the Pension Fund and II. Shall refund within 30 days after expiry of the said period of 60 days, the entire amount of the Banks contribution to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon received by the employee/ officer on retirement together with his/her share in contribution towards meeting 30% of Rs.3115 crores which is estimated and reckoned as the funding gap. On an individual basis, the payment over and above the Bank's contribution to Provident Fund and interest thereon has been worked out at 56% of the said amount of Bank's contribution to Provident Fund and interest thereon received by the employee/officer on retirement."
According to Category-B, an employee should exercise an option, in writing, within sixty days from the date of the offer. Moreover, the petitioner was required to refund within thirty days after the expiry of the said period of sixty years, the entire 7 amount contributed towards Provident Fund, and the interest accrued thereon, received by the employee, together with his/her share in contribution towards their share of 30% of Rs.3115 crores which is estimated and reckoned as the funding gap. Thus, in order to create the corpus, from which the pension were to be paid to the employees, it was apparent that the employee must deposit the Provident Fund amount within a stipulated period of thirty days after the initial period of sixty days.
7. Admittedly, by the letter dated 1.12.2010, the petitioner was informed that he has to deposit the amount of Rs.5,86,451/-. However, undoubtedly the petitioner has failed to do so. Merely because the petitioner may have requested the Bank to extend the loan amount upon the existing loan, on his property, even such request does not fulfill the requirement of the Scheme. Moreover, the petitioner cannot argue that once a request is made to the Bank to extend the loan amount upon the existing loan, the same should have been granted to him by the Bank. Since the petitioner has failed to deposit the required amount, within the stipulated time frame, the 8 petitioner cannot be granted the prayer by this Court. For, this Court cannot direct the respondents to violate the Scheme, and to accept the aforementioned amount, and to grant the benefit of the pensionary scheme to the petitioner.
8. The case of B. V. Narayana Murthy (supra), also dealt with factual situation similar to the present one. For, in the said case, the petitioner, therein, had failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated time frame. Merely because the petitioner had informed the Bank to keep his Provident Fund contribution in a Fixed Deposit till the same is needed, even then, this Court was of the opinion that the petitioner, Mr. B. V. Narayana Murthy, had failed to fulfill the requirements of the Scheme. Therefore, in the case of B. V. Naryana Murthy (supra), this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner therein. Since Mr. B. V. Narayana Murthy, was aggrieved by the order dated 14.7.2015, he even filed a Writ Appeal before this Court, namely Writ Appeal No.2484/2015 (B. V. Narayana Murthy v. The Deputy General Manager, Punjab National Bank And Others). However, by order dated 18.2.2016, the learned 9 Division Bench has dismissed the Writ Appeal, and has confirmed the order dated 14.7.2015.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to distinguish both the case of B. V. Naryana Murthy (supra), and Jai Singh B. Chauhan (supra), on factual matrix. However, even if facts of the case are slightly different, the principle of law stated both by the Apex Court, and by this Court, is that where a specific time frame has been given in the Pension Scheme, and if an employee fails to fulfill the requirement of the Scheme within the stipulated time frame, the employee cannot seek the benefit of the Pensionary Scheme subsequently by filing a writ petition before this Court. Therefore, the present case is covered by the ratio stated in the case of B. V. Naryana Murthy (supra), and in the case of Jai Singh B. Chauhan (supra).
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present Writ Petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bk/-