Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

State Bank Of Mysore vs Smt Suma Maheshchandra on 21 January, 2022

Bench: P S Dinesh Kumar, Rajendra Badamikar

                                      W.A No.5837/2013

                          1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                      PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

                        AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

         WRIT APPEAL No.5837 OF 2013 (S-R)

BETWEEN :

STATE BANK OF MYSORE
A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE
STATE BANK OF INDIA
(SUSIDIARY BANKS') ACT, 1959
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
HEAD OFFICE, K.G.ROAD
BANGALORE-560 009                        ... APPELLANT

(BY SHRI. S.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1.     SMT. SUMA MAHESHCHANDRA
       W/O M. MAHESHCHANDRA
       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
       EARLIER WORKING AS AN
       OFFICER IN JUNIOR MANAGEMENT
       GRADE SCLAE-I SINCE
       VOLUNTARILY RETIRED AND
       RESIDING AT VILLA NO.291
       HIMAGIRI MEADOWS, GOTTIGERE
       BANNERGHATTA ROAD
       BANGALORE-560 083
                                               W.A No.5837/2013

                                 2


2.     SMT. VIMALA KUMARI
       W/O LATE JAMES V. PEREIRA
       AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
       EARLIER WORKING AS AN OFFICER
       IN JUNIOR MANAGEMENT
       GRADE SCALE-I, SINCE
       VOLUNTARILY RETIRED AND
       RESIDING AT NO.376
       II FLOOR, 'F' BLOCK
       SAHAKARANAGAR
       BANGALORE-560 092

3.     SMT. H.S. SUMATHI
       W/O P.D. VIJAYA KUMAR
       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
       EARLIER WORKING AS AN
       OFFICER IN JUNIOR MANAGEMENT
       GRADE SCALE-I
       SINCE VOLUNTARILY RETIRED
       AND RESIDING AT NO.253
       III MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET
       BANGALORE-560 018           ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI. ABHISHEK PATIL, ADVOCATE)

       THIS    WRIT    APPEAL    IS   FILED    U/S   4    OF   THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER    PASSED       IN   THE   WRIT   PETITION         NO.30412-
414/2010(S-R) DATED 19/08/2013.


       THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY,    P.S.    DINESH      KUMAR       J,     DELIVERED       THE
FOLLOWING:-
                                              W.A No.5837/2013

                               3


                         JUDGMENT

State Bank of Mysore has filed these appeals challenging the order dated August 19, 2013 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P. Nos.30412-30414/2010.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred as per their status in the writ petition.

3. We have heard Shri. S.V. Narasimhan, learned Advocate for appellant and Shri. Abhishek Patil, learned Advocate for respondents.

4. Brief facts of the case are, writ petitioners were employees of State Bank of Mysore. The Bank issued a Circular dated June 24, 2006 called as 'Exit Option Scheme'. Petitioners availed the said Scheme and took Voluntary retirement. According to the petitioners, they were entitled for addition of five years to the qualifying service in terms of Regulation 29(5) of the State W.A No.5837/2013 4 Bank of Mysore Employees' (Pension) Regulations, 1995, while computing the pension. This benefit was not extended to them. Hence, they filed the instant writ petitions seeking a direction against the Bank to pay the terminal benefits by adding five years to their qualifying service. Petitions were resisted by the Bank. By the impugned order, the Hon'ble Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions. Hence, these appeals.

5. Shri. S.V. Narasimhan, for appellants submitted that in order to downsize the employees' strength, the Bank introduced the 'Exit Option Scheme' in the year 2006. The Scheme is independent of the Regulations. Writ petitioners have voluntarily sought the 'Exit Option' as per the Scheme. Having opted for the Scheme, they cannot be permitted to turn around and seek benefit under the Regulations also.

5

6. Shri. Narasimhan further submitted that the Hon'ble Single Judge has relied upon the Division Bench Judgment in W.A. No. 4269/2011 decided on March 8, 20121. The ratio in the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case because the Hon'ble Single Judge has held that Regulation 29 of the Regulations does not draw any distinction between a 'Voluntary Retirement Scheme' and other Schemes. This finding is unsustainable in law because, the Schemes are evolved from time to time, keeping in view the exigencies in service and also the development of the Bank.

7. Shri. Abhishek argued supporting the impugned order.

8. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 1 Vijaya Bank Vs. Smt. Suvasini S. Shetty - ILR 2012 KAR 2745 W.A No.5837/2013 6

9. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners have sought for voluntary retirement under the 'Exit Option Scheme'. Their only grievance is, five years of service is not added to their qualifying years of service, while calculating the retirement benefits. The Hon'ble Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, placing reliance on para 24 in W.A. No.4269/2011. It is held therein that the Officers who had availed of 'VRS 2000' were entitled to addition of five years of notional service while calculating the total length of service. The Division Bench has also referred to the judgment in the case of one Mohandas2. Thus, the Division Bench has taken a consistent view that employees who opt for VRS are entitled for addition of five years of notional service for computation of retirement benefits. We are in respectful agreement with the said view.

Bank of India & Another Vs. K. Mohandas & Others

- (2009) 5 SCC 313 W.A No.5837/2013 7

10. In view of the above, this appeal is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE SPS .