Kerala High Court
K.N.Haridasan vs The State Bank Of Travancore on 10 June, 2013
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/22ND MAGHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 26438 of 2013 (D)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
------------------
K.N.HARIDASAN, AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.NARAYANAN, RECORD KEEPER (RETIRED)
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, OTHERA BRANCH, THIRUVALLA
RESIDING AT "SARUS", VENPALA P.O.
THIRUVALLA - 689 102.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.M.PRASANTH
SMT.ASHA BABU
SMT.G.ASHWINI
SMT.AMMU CHARLES
SRI.M.MANOJKUMAR (CHELAKKADAN)
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ
RESPONDENTS:
----------------------
1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
HEAD OFFICE: POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
FINANCE & ACCOUNTS, P.P.G. SECTION
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE: POOJAPPURA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012.
3. THE MANAGER,
OTHERA BRANCH, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 589 546.
BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, SBT
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-02-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 26438 of 2013 (D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-
-----------------------------------
EXT.P1 - COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.06.2013 IN W.P.(C)
NO.23031 OF 2012.
EXT.P2 - COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.07.2012 ISSUED BY
THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE.
EXT.P3 - COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BANK.
EXT.P4 - COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED NIL ISSUED BY R1 BANK TO
THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL
---------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
sp
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------
W.P(C). No.26438 of 2013-D
----------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is before this Court challenging Ext.P4 order, by which he was denied the pension, which he is entitled to for the 40 years of service he rendered under the respondent Bank. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the caste status affirmed by the petitioner, by way of a Certificate issued from the appropriate authority, was found to be incorrect by a Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.1007 of 1999, wherein the petitioner W.P(C). No.26438 of 2013-D 2 was the second appellant. The learned Senior Counsel would urge that all the same, the petitioner having not committed any fraud or misdirected the employer, the benefit, which accrues to him from the long service, cannot be denied to him.
2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank would contend that the caste status of the petitioner was the fundamental aspect on which he was granted appointment as a reserved candidate under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes and the same having been found to be wrong, there can be no claim for benefits accrued on the basis of the service, which service was only due to the wrong caste status affirmed by the petitioner.
3. In any event, it is to be noticed that W.P(C). No.26438 of 2013-D 3 Ext.P4 does not show any reasons for the denial of pension. The learned Standing Counsel would contend that the only reason is the decision of this Court in the MFA and that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, while he was in service, which could not be continued due to a stay order in a writ petition filed by the petitioner. The said writ petition, along with another writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment dated 10.03.2013, in which there was a direction to consider the issue of grant of retirement benefits.
4. The Bank had thought it fit to disburse the gratuity and Provident Fund, since no proceedings could be continued against the petitioner, while he was in employment. However, the petitioner was found to be not W.P(C). No.26438 of 2013-D 4 entitled to pension, only since the petitioner's employment itself was on a misrepresentation. None of these having been stated in Ext.P4. It is only proper that the issue be considered afresh. The respondent Bank shall consider the issue within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and show the reasons for arriving at the decision. The petitioner shall also be heard before orders are passed.
The writ petition would stand disposed, without making any observation on merits. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
//True Copy// P.A. to Judge.
sp/12/02/16