Madras High Court
B.Varadharajan vs The Chief General Manager on 10 August, 2022
Author: S.M. Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.No.2162 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.2162 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
B.Varadharajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Chennai Local Head Office,
16, College Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600006.
2.The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Pension Provident Fund &
Gratuity Department,
Local Head Office,
Circletop House,
No.16, College Lane,
Chennai – 600006.
3.The Chairman,
State Bank of India,
Corporate Centre,
State Bank Bhavan,
Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai – 400021. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pay the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 9
W.P.No.2162 of 2015
interest on pension arrears from September 2003 till the date of payment at
18% per annum along with arrears of short payment in monthly basic
pension from September 2003 along with D.A. applicable from time to
time along with interest at 18% per annum till the date of payment and
interest on commutation value of Rs.3,50,368/- and consequently pay the
balance amount on the PF of Rs.10,998/-.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathish
For M/s.Profexs Associates
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravindran
Senior Advocate
For Mr.K.Chandrasekar
ORDER
The writ of Mandamus has been filed to direct the respondents to pay the interest of pension arrears from September 2003 till the date of payment at 18% per annum along with arrears of short payment in monthly basic pension from September 2003 along with D.A. applicable from time to time along with interest at 18% per annum till the date of payment and interest on commutation value of Rs.3,50,368/- and consequently pay the balance amount on the PF of Rs.10,998/-.
2. The facts in nutshell to be considered are that the petitioner was working as Manager in the State Bank of India. The petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 9 W.P.No.2162 of 2015 submitted an application under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) on 28.08.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner remained absent from duty from 01.09.2003 onwards. An exit interview was conducted by the Bank regarding VRS application submitted by the writ petitioner on 16.02.2004. The writ petitioner during the relevant point of time withdrew the VRS application on 20.02.2004. The petitioner submitted a letter on 28.02.2004 retracting from letter dated 20.02.2004 and sought to leave the services of the Bank under VRS. The Bank sent a reply on 29.03.2004, rejecting the request of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to submit a fresh Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) application. The petitioner instead of submitting a fresh application filed W.P.No.8968 of 2008 and this Court passed an order on 11.04.2008, directing the Bank to pass order on VRS application submitted by the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent / Bank passed an order, rejecting the request of the writ petitioner under VRS scheme in proceedings dated 27.05.2008. The said order of rejection was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.17258 of 2008 and writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 08.03.2010. The petitioner preferred W.A.No.1441 of 2010 and the Division Bench of this Court on 05.10.2012 directed the respondents / Bank to consider the VRS application submitted by the petitioner on 28.08.2003. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 9 W.P.No.2162 of 2015
3. Pursuant to the order of the Division Bench of this Court, the respondents / Bank accepted the VRS application submitted by the writ petitioner on 28.08.2003 and accordingly, relived him from services of the Bank.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the interest on pension arrears is yet to be settled in favour of the writ petitioner. That apart, the Dearness Allowance as applicable periodically from September 2003 onwards and interest for the Dearness Allowance also has not been paid to the writ petitioner. That apart, interest on commutation value is also sought for by the petitioner. The balance amount of Provident Fund is also due as per the petitioner.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents / Bank objected the said contentions of the petitioner by stating that the entire amount has been settled and the petitioner is not entitled for the interest, as the Bank initially rejected the VRS application and reconsidered the application and accepted the same pursuant to the orders passed by the Division Bench on 05.10.2012 in W.A.No.1441 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 9 W.P.No.2162 of 2015 2010. Thus, there was no delay in the settlement of pension arrears and other benefits to the writ petitioner. The Bank originally rejected the VRS application and the petitioner challenged the same before the High Court and the Division Bench, directed the Bank to reconsider the VRS application and accordingly, it was considered in favour of the writ petitioner and he was relived from the service. Thus, the Bank is not at fault and the delay in settling the pension benefits was not at the instance of the Bank, but, due to the litigation initiated by the writ petitioner. Thus, the Bank is not liable to pay the interest.
6. That apart, the petitioner’s VRS application accepted on 28.11.2012 with effect from 01.09.2003 only in terms of the orders of the High Court dated 05.10.2012 in W.A.No.1441 of 2010. There is no short payment as alleged by the petitioner, on the other hand, the petitioner was paid excess amount of Rs.82,909/- and the said excess amount had already been recovered on 26.02.2019. The petitioner sought commutation only on 28.02.2013 and a sum of Rs.3,24,721/- was paid on 27.08.2013. Thus, the respondent / Bank is not liable to pay interest on the commutation amount. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 9 W.P.No.2162 of 2015
7. As far as the interest on Provident Fund arrears was worked and difference amount of Rs.594/- alone is payable to the writ petitioner. The petitioner claims a sum of Rs.10,998/-, which is incorrect and as per the calculation of the respondent /Bank, they are liable to settle a sum of Rs.594/- towards the interest on Provident Fund arrears with effect from 01.04.2013 i.e. Rs.1,31,301.42 x 0.25% x 66/365 = Rs.594/-.
8. That apart, the learned Senior Counsel brought to the notice of this Court that on 26.10.2013, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.7,46,635/- instead of Rs.7,46,601/- towards the interest on Provident Fund accumulations from 01.09.2003 to 05.06.2013. A sum of Rs.5746/- in respect of above excess payment is to be recovered from the petitioner. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents made a submission that even, if the amount of Rs.594/- due to the petitioner is adjusted, the petitioner has to pay the balance amount towards the excess payment made on Provident Fund accumulation.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for the interest of arrears of payment as his Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) application https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 9 W.P.No.2162 of 2015 was rejected by the respondents / Bank and it was reconsidered only in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the year 2012. Accordingly, the VRS application was accepted and the pension arrears are settled in favour of the writ petitioner. Certain mistakes in calculations are also to be rectified and as per the respondents, the excess amount of Rs.5746/- is to be recovered from the writ petitioner. The respondents have further stated that they are liable to pay a sum of Rs.594/- towards interest on PF arrears. Even if the said amount is adjusted, then also, the petitioner has to repay the balance amount. This being the factum, this Court is of an opinion that the claim set out in the relief sought for in the writ petition deserves no further consideration.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.08.2022 Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order : Yes https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 9 W.P.No.2162 of 2015 To
1.The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Chennai Local Head Office, 16, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600006.
2.The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Pension Provident Fund & Gratuity Department, Local Head Office, Circletop House, No.16, College Lane, Chennai – 600006.
3.The Chairman, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai – 400021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 9 W.P.No.2162 of 2015 S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni W.P.No.2162 of 2015 10.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 9