Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 608 (KAR)

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore v. G. Mahadeveppa

2009-08-07

P.D.DINAKARAN, V.G.SABHAHIT

body2009
Judgment :- V.G. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1. ) This appeal was disposed of by order dated November 17, 2008, wherein wherein writ appeal was allowed. However, on review petition filed by the respondent herein in R.P. No. 166/2009, which has been allowed by separate order passed by this Court, the said order dated November 17, 2008 ,is recalled and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties W.A. No. 2251/2006 is taken up for final hearing. ( 2. ) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that State Bank of Mysore Employees' (Pension) Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Pension Regulations') has been given effect from September 29, 1995. The application that was filed by the petitioner on August 3, 1994 was one for resignation with effect from August 4, 1994 and the same has been accepted. Once the resignation of the respondent has been accepted, the application filed by him on August 3, 1994 cannot be treated as one for voluntary retirement. ( 3. ) Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that though settlement was arrived at between the management and the employees of the appellant-Bank on October 29, 1993, the Pension Regulations came into effect on September 29, 1995. However, Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations has been given effect from November 1, 1993. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the respondent-had submitted a letter seeking for voluntary retirement on June 23,1994. However, since the Pension Regulations had not come into force, the respondent was asked to give a modified letter seeking for resignation and the same was submitted on August 3,1994. However, in view of the fact that Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations is made effective from November 1, 1993, to given benefit to those persons, who could not seek voluntary retirement -and had to submit their resignation for want of finalisation of the Pension Scheme and in view of the decision of this Court in Smt. Prabhamani v State Bank of Mysore W.P. No. 26491/2000,. DD: June 14, 2004, which has been implemented by the appellant-Bank, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge giving benefit under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations is justified. ( 4. ) We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinised the material on record. ( 5. DD: June 14, 2004, which has been implemented by the appellant-Bank, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge giving benefit under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations is justified. ( 4. ) We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinised the material on record. ( 5. ) The material on record would clearly show that there is no dispute between the parties that the respondent herein was working as Deputy Manager, an officer in Middle Management, Grade Scale II, State Bank of Mysore, Region-4, Mysore. There is also no" dispute that settlement was arrived at between the Management and the employees of the appellant-Bank including the provision regarding Pension on October 29, 1993. However, ultimately, the Pension Rules could be finalised only with effect from September 29, 1995. There is also no dispute that Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations dealing with Pension on Voluntary Retirement has been brought into effect from November 1, 1993. However, what is contended by the appellant is that it was the respondent, who had submitted resignation to his post and 5 wherefore, he is not entitled to pension and no application had been made by him for voluntary retirement and wherefore, he is not entitled to benefit of Regulation 29 dealing with Pension on Voluntary Retirement. 5.1 The material on record would clearly show that in view of the settlement that had been arrived at between the Management and employees of the appellant-Bank on October 29, 1993, the respondent made an application on June 23, 1994 seeking for voluntary retirement. However, the respondent was informed by the appellant-Bank that since the settlement has not come into effect, voluntary retirement could not be claimed and that he should modify his letter and seek for permission to resign from service. Accordingly, the respondent submitted letter on August 3, 1994 seeking permission to resign from the services . of the Bank with effect from August 4, 1994. The said modified letter was accepted by the appellant and the respondent was relieved from service on August 4, 1994. However, after coming into force of the Pension Regulations with effect from September 29, 1995 and the fact that Regulation 29 has come into effect from November 1,1993, the respondent made a representation to the appellant-Bank seeking for grant of pension. However, after coming into force of the Pension Regulations with effect from September 29, 1995 and the fact that Regulation 29 has come into effect from November 1,1993, the respondent made a representation to the appellant-Bank seeking for grant of pension. However, the same was rejected by the appellant by order dated January ; 30, 2002 and being aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed W.P. No. 12512/2002 seeking for quashing of the order dated January 30, 2002 passed by the appellant rejecting the prayer of the respondent for grant of pension and the consequent letter dated February 2, 2002. 5.2 Learned single Judge, after considering the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and in view of the provisions of the Pension Regulations and the decision of this Court in Smt. Prabhamani v State Bank of Mysore (supra) case referred to above, which has been implemented by the appellant herein -Bank, held that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations by treating him as having taken voluntary retirement under Regulation 29 and directed the appellant herein -Bank to pay him all such emoluments for the period of privilege leave that was standing to his credit at the time of his voluntary retirement from the services of the Bank. The fact that in identical case i.e., in respect of Smt. Prabhamani v State Bank of Mysore (supra) (petitioner in W.P. No. 26491/ 2000), who was working in the appellant-Bank and who stood in the same position as that of the; respondent herein and wherein application for voluntary retirement had been made subsequent to November 1, 1993 and letter for voluntary retirement was modified as letter seeking for resignation as Pension Regulations had not-been finalised, this Court allowed the writ' petition by order dated June 14, 2004 and the appellant-Bank has implemented the said order. In the present case also, the material on record would clearly show that though the respondent. herein had made an application for voluntary retirement on June 23, 1994, the appellant-Bank informed the respondent that the same could not be granted as the Pension Regulations had not been finalised and therefore, he was asked to modify the said letter as one seeking for permission to resign. herein had made an application for voluntary retirement on June 23, 1994, the appellant-Bank informed the respondent that the same could not be granted as the Pension Regulations had not been finalised and therefore, he was asked to modify the said letter as one seeking for permission to resign. Accordingly, the said letter was modified into letter of resignation and the same was accepted by the appellant-Bank on August 4, 1994. Having regard to the above said facts, it is clear that the respondent herein stands on the same footing as that of Smt. Prabhamani, petitioner in W.P. No. 26491/2000, wherein writ petition has been allowed by the learned single Judge by order dated June 14,2004 and the said order has been implemented by the appellant-Bank by giving benefit to the writ petitioner under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations and the order of the Government of India to the effect that in respect of the employees of the Bank, who had sought voluntary retirement under Pension Regulations after November 1,1993 but before September 29, 1995 and whose requests were not considered by the Bank for want of provision for Voluntary Retirement and in view of retrospective operation of Regulation 29, the resignation offered by such employees shall be treated as voluntary retirement and benefit of Regulation 29 shall be given to the applicants. Having regard to the above said facts, it is clear that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition (W.P. No. 12512/2002) is justified and does not suffer from any error or illegality as to call for interference in this intra-Court appeal and accordingly, we hold that there is no merit in this writ appeal and pass the following order.-The writ appeal is dismissed.