Allowed

R S Rajesh v. the Oriental Bank of Commerce

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2023WP/21194/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the refusal of his provident fund refund after opting for a pension scheme inapplicable to him due to a pre-merger service history. The Court held he was not entitled to the scheme and directed the Bank to pay the fund, interest, and reimbursement.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned letter quashed; Bank directed to pay provident fund, interest at 6% per annum, and reimburse ₹76,440 within two months.

R S Rajesh Vs the Oriental Bank of Commerce — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45364 WP No. 21194 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 21194 OF 2012 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

R.S.RAJESH, S/O R.V.SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, No.420/18, ‘SWAGATH SANKALP’ AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M S VARADARAJAN., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING) HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT HARSHA BHAVAN, E BLOCK CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (PF/PENSION) THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, FLAT NO.5, II FLOOR, SECTOR 32, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, GURGAON-122001. STATE OF HARIYANA.

¶15

THE REGIONAL HEAD ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE REGIONAL OFFICE THE LANK MARK, NO.21/15,M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:45364 WP No. 21194 of 2012

¶18

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING, NEW DELHI.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. YOGESH D NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; R-4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER OF THE RESPONDENT BANK DATED 19.3.2012 AS PER ANNEXURE-A, ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petition is filed challenging a communication dated 19.03.2012, whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of his provident fund has been refused.

¶25

The petitioner was an erstwhile employee of the Global Trust Bank. This Bank was merged with the Oriental Bank of Commerce in the year 2006. After the merger, the Oriental Bank of Commerce proceeded to issue a Circular on 23.08.2010, pursuant to a Bi-Partite settlement with the workmen. This Circular extended another option to the employees of the Oriental Bank of Commerce to join the Pension Scheme. This extension of

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45364 WP No. 21194 of 2012

¶27

the second option was give to those employees of Oriental Bank of Commerce, who had not opted for the pension earlier.

¶28

The said circular was made applicable to those employees who were in service of the Bank prior 29.09.1995 and continued in service as on 27.04.2010, and also those who had retired after 29.09.1995 but prior to 27.04.2010.

¶29

Since, the petitioner was not an employee of Oriental Bank of Commerce prior to 29.09.1995, it was obvious that this second option to join the Pension Scheme could not be availed of by the petitioner.

¶30

It is to be borne in mind that a second option to seek pension was given only to those employees who had chosen not to avail of the Pension Scheme on the earlier occasion. In essence, the Circular was only in respect of the employees of the Oriental Bank of Commerce who had chosen not to opt for the Pension Scheme.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:45364 WP No. 21194 of 2012

¶33

This fact becomes clear from the issuance of another

¶34

Establishment Circular dated 13.11.2010 (Annexure ‘D’).

¶35

This Annexure States that the Board had decided to extend the pension option to the offices of the erstwhile Global Trust Bank, who had been absorbed into the employment of the Bank on its amalgamation and continue in the service of the Bank.

¶36

It is, thus, clear that the option of a pension was extended to the employees of the erstwhile Global Trust Bank, such as the petitioner, only on 13.11.2010 and from this, it can be gathered that the petitioner could not have availed as an option, as provided under the Circular dated 23.08.2010.

¶37

However, it appears that, on a misconception, the petitioner had exercised his option, pursuant to the circular dated 23.08.2010 on 08.10.2020.

¶38

The petitioner submitted his resignation on 10.12.2011 and the same was also accepted.

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45364 WP No. 21194 of 2012

¶40

It is not in dispute that pursuant to the Establishment Circular dated 13.11.2010, the petitioner

¶41

had not exercised his option to avail of the pension. However, though the petitioner had not availed of this option, the Bank has proceeded to act upon the option that he had given pursuant to the Circular dated 23.08.2010 and has refused to refund the provident fund.

¶42

It cannot be in dispute that the entitlement of the petitioner to seek pension emanated only by virtue of the Establishment Circular dated 13.11.2010. Admittedly, until 13.11.2010, the erstwhile employees of the Global Trust Bank, such as the petitioner herein, did not have the option of seeking a pension. It, therefore, follows that even if such an option was given by the employees, the same would be of no consequence.

¶43

To put it differently, only if an erstwhile employee of the Global Trust Bank, who had continued in service of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, had given an option after

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:45364 WP No. 21194 of 2012

¶45

13.11.2010, would such an employee be entitled for pension.

¶46

The net consequence of this is that the petitioner, having not given any option pursuant to the Circular dated 13.11.2010, would not be entitled for pension and as a further consequence, the provident fund that he was entitled to, would have to be paid to him on his resignation from the Bank.

¶47

Notwithstanding this position, the Bank has refused to pay the petitioner his provident fund.

¶48

To re-iterate, since the petitioner would not be entitled for pension as he did not opt for the same pursuant to the Circular dated 13.11.2010, the Bank would be bound to pay him the provident fund on his resignation.

¶49

Consequently, the impugned order is quashed and

¶50

the respondent-Bank is directed to pay the petitioner the provident fund that the petitioner is entitled to on his resignation from the post.

¶51

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:45364 WP No. 21194 of 2012

¶52

Since the provident funds were wrongly withheld by the Bank, it would be appropriate to direct the Bank to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e., 25.06.2012 till the date of payment.

¶53

The respondent-Bank shall also reimburse a sum of Rs.76,440/- that it had deducted from the petitioner’s salary.

¶54

The same shall be done within a period of two

¶55

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶56

The writ petition is accordingly allowed .

¶57

Sd/(N S SANJAYGOWDA) JUDGE

¶58

¶59

CT: SN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

¶60

*Page No.7 retyped & replaced vide Court order dated 24.01.2025

R S Rajesh v. the Oriental Bank of Commerce

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R S Rajesh v. the Oriental Bank of Commerce

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

Shri T Thimmaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. T. Shankar Vs Karnataka State Teachers Benefits Fund

Dr. P. Manjunatha Vs Chancellor

Smt Mahadevamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Putta Siddamma, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Hemalatha Vs the Manager