Writ Appeal filed by a retired bank employee challenging the Single Judge's order dismissing his petition seeking waiver of future interest on provident funds. Affirmed that the employee is liable to remit the full amount with interest and the appeal was dismissed.
The writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the impugned order dated 14.10.2020.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.667/2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT APPEAL No.667/2020 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI R.V.RAMAN S/O LATE SHRI R.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O NO. 1717/2, 3RD MAIN, 7TH CROSS, 'F' BLOCK, DATTAGALLI, 3RD STAGE, KANAKADASANAGAR, MYSURU 570 022. …APPELLANT
(BY SRI JAGADISH D. HIREMATH, ADV.)
AND:
W.A.667/2020
2
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.13071/2015 DATED 14.10.2020 BY ALLOWING IT AND TO QUASH ANNEXURE-L TO BE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated 14th October 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in Writ Petition No.13071/2015 (SRES) ( R.V.Raman -vs- Punjab National Bank and Others).
W.A.667/2020
3
Pension Scheme. An offer was made available to the employees to opt for Pension Scheme w.e.f. 26.08.2010 to 25.10.2010 and he did submit an option for grant of pension under the scheme introduced on account of Bipartite settlement. The employees opting for pension were required to remit back 100% deposit in respect of the amount under the Provident Fund contribution and the claim of the appellant was rejected. The appellant thereafter preferred a writ petition before this court in Writ Petition No.7677/2011 (S-RES) and the same was allowed by order dated 4th July 2012. In the earlier round of litigation, the Bank was directed to accept the provident fund contribution from the present appellant with interest within two weeks from the date of the order.
earlier round of litigation, the appellant was directed to remit the provident fund amount with interest for extending the benefit of pension. The respondent Bank issued a communication to deposit the entire provident fund amount with interest vide order dated 24.06.2014.
W.A.667/2020
4
The appellant feeling aggrieved by the communication dated 24.06.2014 preferred a second writ petition stating that he is not required to pay future interest. The learned Single Judge of this court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 14th October 2020. Paragraphs-2 and 3 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge read as under:
"2. Pursuant to the circular No. 10/10 dated 20.09.2010 relates to grant of pension under the scheme to the Retired Bank Employees, petitioner submitted representation opting for pension and so also furnished pension papers on 10.11.2010. The petitioner sent a representation on 26.11.2010 to consider his pension option in view of the last date assigned as 24.11.2010. Respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner on 01.12.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection, petitioner preferred writ petition in W.P.No.7677/2011 and it was allowed on 04.07.2012. Extract of the order portion reads as under:-
“1) Writ petition is hereby allowed.
2) The impugned order dated 01.12.2010 Annexure-J is hereby quashed.
W.A.667/2020
5
3) The respondents are hereby directed to accept the provident fund contribution from the side of petitioner with interest. The petitioner to pay provident fund dues within two weeks from today. On deposit of the amount by the petitioner, the respondents to cover the petitioner under the Provident Regulations by extending the consequential benefits as admissible under this Scheme.”
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision, respondents have asked the petitioner to remit provident fund amount along with the interest for the purpose of extending pension. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the communication dated 24.06.2014 (AnnexureL) presented this petition contending that petitioner is not liable to pay future interest. Such contention is taken with reference to paragraph 3 of the aforesaid order of this Court. Perusal of paragraph 3 of the aforesaid order, it is crystal clear that respondents are directed to accept the provident fund from the petitioner with interest. This Court has not spelt excluding future interest. Petitioner is beneficiary in respect of extending second pension option. Therefore, he is bound to deposit provident fund contribution 100%. If the petitioner had opted for second pension at
W.A.667/2020
6
the initial stage then this arrangement of deposit of provident fund would not have arisen. Since the petitioner is benefited by the second pension option, he is bound to pay interest on provident fund contribution as on the date of remitting provident fund contribution on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, question of waiver of future interest do not arise. Accordingly, petitioner has not made out a case. Consequently, Annexure-L dated 24.06.2014 issued by the first respondent-The Deputy General manager, Punjab National Bank is upheld, consequently, writ petition stands dismissed."
very clear that in the earlier round of litigation i.e., Writ Petition No.7677/2011 decided on 04.07.2012, this court had directed the present appellant to pay the whole provident fund amount along with interest and now the appellant has taken a somersault stating that he does not want to pay interest. The amount of provident fund was kept by the appellant for a considerable long time and he
W.A.667/2020
7
is certainly liable to pay interest for the period the amount was kept with him.
The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
KNM/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a retired bank employee who opted for pension after superannuation is liable to pay interest on the provident fund amount deposited later.
Whether the High Court Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition for waiver of future interest on the provident fund contribution.
Shri R.V.Raman
The Deputy General Manager Punjab National Bank
The Circle Head Punjab National Bank
The Senior Manager Punjab National Bank
Satish Chandra Sharma
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
