ORDER : M. NAGAPRASANNA, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. What is called in question in these petitions is the refund of the excess of employees’ share in the provident fund recovered in terms of the respective orders. 3. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition No.5005 of 2023, disposed on 17 th January 2024, has held as follows: “2. This captioned writ petition is filed by the retired employee of respondent – Bank aggrieved by the endorsement issued by respondent Nos.5 and 6 as per Annexures-B and H respectively, wherein the employer, while rejecting representation letter dated 26.12.2022, has declined to look into claim made by the petitioner seeking recovery of amount of Rs.3,14,329/- on the ground that respondent – Bank has collected excess amount while extending pension scheme to the petitioner. The said endorsement issued by respondent No.6 is called in question. 3. Facts leading to the case are as under; The petitioner joined respondent – Bank on 31.01.1986 as Filed Supervisor in the erstwhile Chitradurg Gramin Bank and was promoted to the post of Manager during his service. The petitioner has attained superannuation and was relieved from the service on 31.01.2020. While petitioner was in service, the respondent – Bank issued a Circular No.100/2018-19 dated 01.01.2019 with regard to implementation of the pension scheme in the Bank. The Pension Regulations, 2018 introduced by the Bank gave an option to the employee to become a member of the Fund with requisite conditions that employee should transfer entire contribution of the Bank along with interest accrued thereon, to the credit of the Fund constituted under Regulation 4 of the Pension Regulations, 2018. 4. The petitioner opted for the scheme and became a member of the Board and refunded final amount received by him from the corpus comprising of Bank’s contribution to the provident fund under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 along with interest accrued thereon. 5. The petitioner was relieved from service on 31.01.2020. The petitioner, who is now getting a pension in terms of the Pension Regulations, 2018, submitted an application on 26.12.2022. In the said representation, the petitioner has claimed that he has approached office of respondent – Bank and has collected information under RTI Act. 5. The petitioner was relieved from service on 31.01.2020. The petitioner, who is now getting a pension in terms of the Pension Regulations, 2018, submitted an application on 26.12.2022. In the said representation, the petitioner has claimed that he has approached office of respondent – Bank and has collected information under RTI Act. Placing reliance on the statement issued by respondent – Bank, petitioner claimed that the respondent – Bank while extending the benefit of Pension Regulations, 2018, has collected excess amount of Rs.3,14,329/- and hence, representation is submitted as per Annexure – G calling upon the Bank to return the excess amount of Rs.3,14,329/- along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of recovery till the date of payment. 6. Respondent – Bank has issued an endorsement on 17.01.2023 thereby informing the petitioner that the details furnished by the petitioner are found to be incomplete and therefore, alleged excess amount claimed by the petitioner cannot be considered for want of documents and details in that regard. The said endorsement is under challenge. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7. Perused the materials on record. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have collected excess amount while extending benefit of the Pension Regulations, 2018. The petitioner’s claim that Banker’s Contribution towards provident fund under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 was only to the tune of Rs.2,45,664/-. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 referring to the materials on record would bring to the notice of this Court that employee has periodically sought release of the contribution made by the employer as well as by the employee. Referring to the Bank Statement issued by respondent Nos.3 and 4, she would point out that the details pertaining to the employees contribution from 1979-80 clearly gives an indication that as on 2019-20, the total contribution by the employer works out to Rs.5,15,421/- . She has also placed reliance on the account statement issued by respondent No.7 – Corporation. Referring to the account statement of the petitioner, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has withdrawn GPF contribution made by the petitioner as well as by the Bank. 10. She has also placed reliance on the account statement issued by respondent No.7 – Corporation. Referring to the account statement of the petitioner, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has withdrawn GPF contribution made by the petitioner as well as by the Bank. 10. Referring to these significant details, it was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Organization that petitioner, in absence of documents to counter these statements, is not entitled to seek refund by alleging that excess amount is recovered by respondent Nos.3 and 4 while extending the Pension Regulation, 2018. 11. On examining materials on record, more particularly, the account statement issued by respondent No.7 would place on record by the petitioner and the statement of the Bank maintained since 1979-80 and 2019-20. The entire claim made by the petitioner alleging that excess amount was collected while extending Pension Regulations, 2018 appears to be misconceived and is an after thought. Interestingly, this petition is filed in the month of February, 2023. The records reveal that the petitioner was relieved from service having attained age of superannuation on 31.01.2020. The petitioner having opted for the pension scheme and having received monthly pension for almost three years has made a feeble attempt alleging that excess amount is collected. The impugned endorsement would not warrant any interference as the Bank was justified in declining to entertain representation dated 26.12.2022. Except bald claim in the representation, the representation is not supported by any documents to indicate that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have collected excess amount towards employees contribution. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant any indulgence to the petitioner. 12. At this juncture, however, petitioner is unable to furnish bank details and documents to substantiate his claim. It is open for the petitioner to submit a fresh representation along with all the relevant documents. The order passed by this Court would not come in the way of the petitioner as the impugned endorsement clearly indicates that the respondents – Bank while issuing endorsement is only insisting to furnish the documents relating to the payment made by the Bank while settling petitioner’s service benefits. With these above observations, the writ petition stands disposed off. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. Two weeks’ time is granted to the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 to file vakalath in the counter.” 4. With these above observations, the writ petition stands disposed off. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. Two weeks’ time is granted to the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 to file vakalath in the counter.” 4. The afore-quoted judgment is followed by this Court in Writ Petition No.104824 of 2024, disposed on 10 th February 2025, wherein the petition was rejected on the same lines. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent now submits that the petitioner and the like have called the said order in question before the Division Bench, and the Division Bench is seized of the matter. However, no interim order of stay has been granted to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. In that light, the petitions stand disposed on the same lines.