Allowed

T M Pemmaiah v. Canara Bank

Karnataka HC19 Oct 2020WP/28307/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a collegium writ petition, the High Court of Karnataka quashed specific bank communications and remitted the matter to the respondents to reconsider afresh within three months, allowing the petition in part. It held the case identical to a previous disposed order dated 16.10.2020.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communications dated 3.12.2016 and 14.6.2017 were quashed, and the matter was remitted to the respondents to reconsider afresh within three months.

T M Pemmaiah Vs Canara Bank — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.28307/2018 (S – RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

T.M.PEMMAIAH S/O T.P.MUTHANNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WORKING AS WATCH MAN, CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE, (NAVEEN COMPLEX), M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶9

AND RESIDING AT ‘SUNDAR NIVAS’ NO.434, 614, M.G.PALYA, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 068.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI NARAYANA BHAT M., ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶12

AND

¶13

1. CANARA BANK

¶14

REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE NO.112, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶15

¶16

THE MANAGER CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE STAFF ADMINISTATION SECTION, HUMAN RESOURCE WING, HEAD OFFICE BUILDING, NO.112, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI T.P.MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3.12.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND COMMUNICATION DATED 14.6.2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS AS THE SAME IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 16 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ETC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Court by order dated 16.10.2020 in

¶23

W.P.No.28302/2018 & connected matters has passed the following order:

¶24

“(i) The writ petitions are allowed in part.

¶25

(ii) The Communications issued by the respondents dated 3.12.2016 vide Annexure

¶26

¶27

‘G’ and dated 14.06.2017 vide Annexure ‘H’ are quashed.

¶28

(iii) The matters are remitted back to the respondent-Bank to reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.”

¶29

The case at hand is also identical to the ones that

¶30

are disposed. Hence, this writ petition is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

bkp CT:MJ

T M Pemmaiah v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T M Pemmaiah v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramanna Vs State of Karnataka

Mr v Jagannatha Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Bangalore Metropolitan Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

The Taluk Social Welfare Vs G.M Suresh

H.M. Narayana Vs M/S Karnataka Food and Civil

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner