Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 493 (KAR)

H. v. Satyanarayana Rao VS State Bank of Mysore

2000-07-14

R.GURURAJAN

body2000
ORDER R. Gururajan, J.—Petitioner in this petition has sought for the following prayers with the following facts.-- "Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Order No. CM:OAD: 008981, dated 8-12-1998 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) and Order No. CM:OAD:005253, dated 5-6-1999 (Annexure-D to the writ petition) passed by the respondent-Bank. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-Bank to grant the petitioner full salary and allowances for the period of 46 days additional sick leave availed by him, if necessary by debiting 92 days to leave account of the petitioner together with interest thereon at 18 per cent per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner until date of payment". Facts: Petitioner was an employee of the respondent-Bank. He availed certain leave due to his credit. According to the petition averments he is entitled for the full salary and allowances for 46 days, additional sick leave availed by him. He submitted an application at Annexure-A in the regard. An endorsement at Annexure-B was issued on 8-12-1998. Thereafter, one more representation was sent on 15-4-1999. Now an endorsement at Annexure-D, dated 5-6-1999 is issued to the petitioner. In the said endorsement respondent has stated that the availment of 46 days sick leave over and above 540 days cannot be debited to the leave account of the petitioner. They have rejected his case. It is in these circumstances petitioner is before this Court seeking for the various prayers. 2. In the petition, petitioner in justification of his claim has referred to Regulation 34 of the Regulations and has also referred to a judgment of this Court in W.P. Nos. 5455 of 1994 and 7112 of 1995 decided on 29-6-1999. 3. Respondent has entered appearance and filed a counter-statement. The only answer of the respondent is that the petitioner is not entitled for this benefit in the light of Staff Circular dated 20-1-2000. According to respondent a policy decision has been taken denying such facilities by all Banks including the respondent-Bank. They have produced the circular dated 20-1-2000 bearing Circular No. 087/1999-2000 in their defence. 4. I heard this case at great length and after hearing this order is passed. 5. The petitioner in support of his prayer strongly relies on Regulation 34 and the judgment of this Court. They have produced the circular dated 20-1-2000 bearing Circular No. 087/1999-2000 in their defence. 4. I heard this case at great length and after hearing this order is passed. 5. The petitioner in support of his prayer strongly relies on Regulation 34 and the judgment of this Court. Regulation 34 reads as under.-- "(1) On and from 1-1-1989, an officer shall be eligible for 30 days of sick leave for each completed year of service subject to a maximum of 18 months during the entire service, such leave can be accumulated upto 540 days during the entire service and may be availed of only on production of medical certificate by a medical practitioner acceptable to the bank or at the bank's discretion nominated by it at its cost. (2) In respect of the period of sick leave an officer shall be eligible to receive one half of the full emoluments. Provided that if an officer so desires, the Bank may permit him to draw full emoluments in respect of any portion of sick leave granted to him twice the amount of such period on full emoluments being debited against sick leave account. (3) The Bank may require any officer desiring to resume duty on the expiry of sick leave, to produce medical certificate saying that he is fit for duty". 6. The said regulation was subject-matter of a decision of this Court. This Court in the case of Corporation Bank Officers' Organisation vs. Corporation Bank, considered the scope of Regulation 34 after referring to Regulation 35. This Court after noticing the Regulations 34 and 35 in para 10 has held as under.-- "Consequently an officer availing additional sick leave under Regulation 34 would be equally entitled to half emoluments and would also be entitled to commute the same as contemplated under Regulation 34. Otherwise, it would lead to anomalous situations and would defeat the very purpose of the grant of additional sick leave under Regulation 35". Petitioner as mentioned earlier relies on the said judgment. Admittedly, the petitioner's claims relates to the period prior to 1999. The endorsement is dated 5-6-1999. The judgment is dated 29-6-1999 and the writ petition is filed on 2-2-2000. Petitioner as mentioned earlier relies on the said judgment. Admittedly, the petitioner's claims relates to the period prior to 1999. The endorsement is dated 5-6-1999. The judgment is dated 29-6-1999 and the writ petition is filed on 2-2-2000. In the light of the clear pronouncement of law by this Court in respect of the very clause I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit in terms of the judgment of this Court since the very relief is same/similar in the present case as well as the Corporation Bank's case, supra. 7. The respondent's learned Counsel however strongly objects for grant of relief by relying on a circular dated 20-1-2000. The said circular is in the light of the clarification issued by the Indian Banks' Association after noticing the judgment of this Court. The Indian Banks' Association in the letter dated 15-9-1999 has said that in the light of the judgment of this Court the benefit of commutation of additional sick leave on full pay and allowances may be allowed in all cases of additional sick leave availed on or after 29th June, 1999 in terms of Regulation 35 of the Officers' Service Regulations. However, past case need not be reopened. In the light of the advises of the Indian Banks' Association the respondent-Bank has issued a circular dated 20-1-2000 in which it has been mentioned that the past cases prior to 29-6-1999 will not be open for consideration. This circular is relied on by the respondent-Bank to deny the benefit to the petitioner. I am afraid that this defence is not open to the Bank. The regulations has not been amended and the said regulations are binding on the parties. So long as the regulations are in force, parties cannot wriggle out of legally binding regulations in the light of the judgment of this Court interpreting Clause 34 of the Regulations. In the circumstances, the defence of the Bank relying on the Staff Circular dated 20-1-2000 in my opinion is not available in the absence of any amendment to Regulation 34 of the Regulations. Even otherwise, I am of the view that the circular has come into force only after the rejection of the petitioner's case. Admittedly, an endorsement was issued to the petitioner on 5-6-1999. This circular was not available to the Bank on the said date. Even otherwise, I am of the view that the circular has come into force only after the rejection of the petitioner's case. Admittedly, an endorsement was issued to the petitioner on 5-6-1999. This circular was not available to the Bank on the said date. The said circular is not retrospective as I see from the circular. Even in the endorsement it is not mentioned that his case cannot be considered on account of policy decision in the matter. 8. In these circumstances, in my view Annexure-D is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is to be granted the relief as sought for in the petition. 9. Writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement is set aside. The Bank is directed to grant the salary as applicable to the petitioner in terms of Regulation 34 of the Regulations. Since the said payment is long overdue to the petitioner, petitioner is also entitled for interest at 18% from the date of his liability till the date of payment. 10. No costs.