Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1040 (KAR)

Aravind Sen v. State Bank of Mysore

2011-10-24

A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

body2011
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as cashier/clerk on 30.05.1996 in the respondent-bank and reported for duty on 31.05.1996. On 01.12.2005, he was promoted to the cadre of Officer. He submitted a letter of resignation on 02.04.2008, which was accepted on 20.05.2008 and the petitioner was relieved on 12.07.2008. Though he was eligible for an amount of `1,95,104/- towards provident fund, by deducting `1,30,383/-, `64,721/-was credited to the petitioner’s account. Subsequently, `49,827/- recovered towards 3 months salary in lieu of notice period was paid on 11.8.2009. `1,36,848/- was paid on 24.10.2008 towards gratuity and `5,997/-, which included `2,077/- towards difference of gratuity amount and interest at 10% for the delay period of 103 days was paid on 17.12.2008. 2. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 01.05.2009, as at Annexure-J, to pay `25,936.40 and interest at 18% up to 31.05.2009. Alleging inaction on the part of the bank, this writ petition was filed, to direct the bank to release the terminal benefits of `3,14,606/-and reimburse the outstanding amount of `30,787/-as per the representation dated 01.05.2009 (Annexure-J) and direct the bank to grant pension as per Regulation 32 of State Bank of Mysore Employees’ (pension) Regulations, 1995 (for short ‘the Regulations’), and to release all consequential amount with interest. 3. The respondents filed statement of objections, wherein, they have furnished the details of the payments made to the petitioner and have contended that the petitioner having resigned from service which entails forfeiture of pension as provided in Regulation 22 and he having not completed 20 years of service, so as to be eligible for pension as per Regulation 29, which provides for 20 years of qualifying service for being eligible for pension and the petitioner having resigned voluntarily and being not a case of pre-mature retirement by the bank, Regulation 32 has no application. 4. Sri. M.M. Ravindra, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, firstly contended that the petitioner rendered service from 31.05.1996 to 12.07.2008, for a total period of 12 years and 1 ½ months and is entitled for payment of pension as per Regulation 32, since Regulation 14 makes it clear that, ten years of service rendered would be qualifying service and will make it eligible for the petitioner to get the pension. Secondly, the deduction of `1,30,383/- by the bank is unjust, arbitrary and illegal and lastly, the representation of the petitioner as at Annexure-J has not been considered and the legitimate amount due has not been paid and the petitioner has been subjected to harassment. 5. Sri. Puthige R. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, by making reference to the statement of objections filed, wherein the payments made to the petitioner has been stated, contended that, the petitioner voluntarily resigned from service of the bank before completion of 20 years of service, so as to be eligible for pension and petitioner’s claim for payment of pension is totally untenable. Learned counsel submitted that, just prior to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was paid `49,827/- being the withheld salary of three months, which the petitioner has not acknowledged in the writ petition. Hence, the claim made for payment of the amount of three months salary is untenable. Learned counsel however, fairly conceded that, an amount of `80,556/- deducted from the provident fund of the petitioner being not justified, the bank will have to pay the said amount. Learned counsel submitted that, the representation at Annexure-J being untenable, in view of the factual position stated in the statement of objections, there is no need to direct the bank to consider the said representation. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the writ record. The points for consideration are: (i) Whether the petitioner has rendered the qualifying period of service to direct the payment of pension by the bank? (ii) Is the bank liable to pay any amount to the petitioner? RE:POINT NO.(i): 7. Indisputedly, the petitioner voluntarily offered to resign from the service of the bank, which was accepted by the bank and the petitioner was relieved from service of the bank on 12.07.2008. The petitioner has worked in the bank from 31.05.2008. The petitioner has worked in the bank from 31.05.1996 to 12.07.2008, for a total period of 12 years and 1 ½ months. 8. The petitioner has worked in the bank from 31.05.2008. The petitioner has worked in the bank from 31.05.1996 to 12.07.2008, for a total period of 12 years and 1 ½ months. 8. ‘Retirement’ as defined under Regulation 2(y) of the Regulations, means, cessation from bank’s service, (a) on attaining the age of superannuation specified in Service Regulations or Settlements: (b) on voluntary retirement in accordance with provisions contained in Regulation 29 of these regulations: (c) on premature retirement by the bank before attaining the age of superannuation specified in Service Regulations or Settlement. 9. Relevant provisions contained in the Regulations, for the purpose of deciding the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner to pension, are the following: “14. Qualifying Service – Subject to the other conditions contained in these regulations, an employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service in the bank, on the date of his retirement or on the date on which he is deemed to have retired shall qualify for pension. 22. Event of disqualification – (1) Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the bank including that of an employee who is deemed to have voluntarily retired from the bank’s service in terms of the provisions for voluntary cessation of employment contained in Bipartite Settlement shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. 29. Pension on Voluntary Retirement – (1) On or after the 1st day of November 1993, at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the competent authority retire from service. 32. Premature Retirement Pension – Premature Retirement Pension may be granted to an employee who, - (a) has rendered minimum ten years of service; (b) retires from service on account of orders of the bank to retire prematurely in the public interest or for any other reason specified in service regulations or settlement, if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date. (Italicised by me) 10. Regulations 14 & 29 relate to the period of qualifying service for pension under the Regulations in two different situations. (Italicised by me) 10. Regulations 14 & 29 relate to the period of qualifying service for pension under the Regulations in two different situations. While Regulation 14 provides that, in order to be eligible for pension, an employee would have to render a minimum of 10 years service, Regulation 29 is applicable to the employee choosing to retire from service prematurely and in his case, the period of qualifying service would be 20 years. 11. The petitioner having joined service on 31.05.1996 and having voluntarily retired from service, without having completed the required length of qualifying service as provided under Regulation 29, is not eligible for pension under the Regulations. The petitioner having voluntarily resigned from service of the bank before completing 20 years of service, is not entitled to claim pension from the bank. RE:POINT NO.(ii): 12. The claim of the petitioner that the deduction of `30,876/-as refund of honorarium for having passed CISA, `40,000/-towards irregularities in the NSC OD Account and `9,680/- towards festival advance dues, being well founded was rightly conceded by Sri Puthige R. Ramesh. The respondents are liable to pay the said amounts to the petitioner. Since the amount was withheld without any justification and that too for a long period, the respondents are liable to pay interest at 12% on `80,556/-, from 1st August 2008, since the petitioner was relieved from service on 12.07.2008. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed in part and as follows: (i) The prayer of the petitioner to direct the respondents to grant pension is rejected. (ii) The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner `80,556/-along with interest at 12% p.a. from 01.08.2008, within a period of two months. (iii) In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.