Quashed

G K Prasanna v. the Chairman and Managing Director

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2024WP/23203/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the respondent Bank's order rejecting the petitioner's claim to be treated as a pension optee. The Court held that since the petitioner was out of service during the stipulated option period, he was entitled to exercise the option upon reinstatement. The Bank was directed to grant pension benefits from the date of superannuation.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned order; directed grant of pension benefits from 01.05.2007 to 26.11.2009.

G K Prasanna Vs the Chairman and Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9215 WP No. 23203 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 23203 OF 2012 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

G K PRASANNA

¶10

S/O LATE G.K. KRISHNA IYENGAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O 4^TH CROSS, THEJUR ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR END, HASSAN -573201.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. B A RAMAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR STATE OF MYSORE HEAD OFFICE, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE -560 009.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. C M NAGABHUSHAN., ADVOCATE)

¶17

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

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.12.11 MADE BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-U REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER TO TREAT HIM AS PENSION OPTEE BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO TREAT THE PETITIONER AS PENSION OPTEE BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE, ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9215 WP No. 23203 of 2012

¶21

ORDER

¶22

On 09.01.1984, the services of the petitioner, who was working as a typist-cum-clerk, was terminated.

¶23

The petitioner challenged said order of termination by approaching the Labour Court. The Labour Court, however, upheld the order of termination by its order dated 13.12.1988.

¶24

The petitioner, being aggrieved preferred W.P. No.3789 of 1989 before this Court. This Court, by an order dated 10.11.1997, allowed the writ petition and set aside the award of the Labour Court and directed reinstatement of the petitioner.

¶25

Pursuant to the abovesaid order, the order permitting the petitioner’s reinstatement was passed on 29.07.1998 and the petitioner reported for duty on 04.08.1998.

¶26

The head office of the respondent – Bank issued a communication dated 08.12.2001 to the petitioner stating

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9215 WP No. 23203 of 2012

¶28

that he had not exercised the option for pension within the stipulated period and that he had been included in the Provident Fund optee list only.

¶29

Challenging said communication, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.14730 of 2006 before this Court, which was disposed of on 23.07.2008 on the ground of delay.

¶30

As against the said order of dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner filed a writ appeal in W.A. No.2057 of 2008, which was allowed by an order dated 13.03.2009, restoring the writ petition and issuing directions to the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition keeping in view that the claim of the petitioner is for retirement benefit, which the petitioner opted for.

¶31

After restoration of Writ petition No.14730 of 2006, this Court passed an order dated 06.09.2011 allowing the writ petition and quashed the communication/order dated 08.12.2001, with liberty to the respondent to consider the plea of the petitioner.

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9215 WP No. 23203 of 2012

¶33

Pursuant to the said order, the respondent issued the impugned endorsement dated 12.12.2011 rejecting the claim of the petitioner that he had exercised the first option for pension.

¶34

It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order dated 10.11.1997 passed in W.P. No.3789 of 1999, the order permitting the petitioner’s reinstatement was passed by the respondent on 29.07.1998 and the petitioner reported for duty on 04.08.1998.

¶35

In the period during which the petitioner was out of service, the State Bank of Mysore, with the approval of the Reserve Bank of India, framed ‘the State Bank of Mysore Employees’ (Pension) Regulations, 1995, which enabled the employees to opt for pension.

¶36

A circular was issued pursuant to said Regulations calling for options and the last date fixed for submitting the options was stipulated as 20.07.1996. Since the petitioner was not in service as on 20.07.1996, the

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9215 WP No. 23203 of 2012

¶38

question of the petitioner exercising the option for pension did not arise.

¶39

It is the case of the petitioner that after he reported for duty he did make an application seeking to opt for the pension scheme and the Manager, by the endorsement dated 08.12.2001, informed him that he had not exercised the option for a pension within the stipulated period and he continued to be a provident fund optie and therefore, his claim for pension could not be accepted.

¶40

It is the case of the petitioner that he had thereafter submitted two representations on 27.12.2003 and also on 24.12.2004 but to no avail.

¶41

It is his further case that the Bank came out with another Circular after he retired on 30.04.2007 giving a second option to the employees to opt for pension and the petitioner had exercised said option on 08.08.2010 and accordingly, the petitioner was paid the pension.

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9215 WP No. 23203 of 2012

¶43

It is also admitted by the Bank that the petitioner reimbursed to the Bank the Provident Fund that he had withdrawn in order to facilitate the payment of a pension.

¶44

It is, however, the case of the petitioner that the Bank had acted illegally in refusing the first option that he had exercised after he reported for duty. It is his case that

¶45

the petitioner was required to be given the right to exercise his option even after the last date stipulated, i.e., 20.07.1996, in view of the fact that the petitioner was reinstated only in the year 1998.

¶46

On the other hand, it is the contention of the Bank that the petitioner is guilty of manipulating the exercise of his option after he was reinstated, and that the rejection of his representation by the Manager cannot be taken into consideration as the Manager had no authority to decide on the said subject.

¶47

From the facts narrated above, one thing is clear that the Bank had given an option to the employees to opt for

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:9215 WP No. 23203 of 2012

¶50

the pension and had fixed 20.07.1996 as the last date to submit the said option. The Bank has, thereafter, also given a second option to the employees to offer option and had fixed the last date as 28.08.2010.

¶51

It therefore, follows that the date stipulated as 20.07.1996 or 28.08.2010 would pale into insignificance in the case of the petitioner herein, who was not on duty as on 20.07.1996, which is the date before which he had to exercise his first option.

¶52

Having regard to the fact that the Bank itself had given two options, and taking into consideration that the Manager acknowledged that he had exercised the option to opt for pension in the year 2001 itself, it is obvious that the rejection of the petitioner's claim for pension would be incorrect.

¶53

Yet another factor which has to be considered in the case of petitioner is that he was not in service as on 20.07.1996 and was reinstated only on 04.08.1998.

¶54

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:9215 WP No. 23203 of 2012

¶55

If an employee of the Bank is unable to exercise his

¶56

option by virtue of him being out of service, he would obviously have a right to exercise his option on being reinstated. It is not the case of the Bank that it had informed the petitioner that he had the right to opt for a pension on him being reinstated.

¶57

In fact, the Bank was under an obligation to inform the petitioner about the entitlements that the petitioner had lost out in the period during which he was not in service. The Bank, having not done so, cannot thereafter contend that the petitioner had made a dubious option in the year 2001 and hence, the same cannot be accepted.

¶58

It is also to be noticed here that it is admittedly not the case of the Bank that they initiated any action against the Manager who had endorsed to the petitioner that he would not be entitled to opt for the pension. It thus follows that the Bank was aware that the petitioner had made an option in the year 2001 itself, and it would be

¶59

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:9215 WP No. 23203 of 2012

¶60

incorrect on the part of the Bank to now contend that no

¶61

such option was exercised by the petitioner.

¶62

As a result, the impugned endorsement which refuses the petitioner the right to opt for pension with effect from the date on which the petitioner was reinstated, cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed .

¶63

The Bank is directed to grant the petitioner the benefit of pension from the date the petitioner superannuated, i.e., from 01.05.2007 to 26.11.2009.

¶64

If the Bank is required to seek approval or orders from any authority, this order shall be construed as the reason for them to seek such approval.

¶65

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

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

G K Prasanna v. the Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G K Prasanna v. the Chairman and Managing Director

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

K. a. Thomas Vs Ganeshwar. S. L.

Sri. R. Rajagopal Vs Smt. Rathnamma

Sri Puttachari Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Kishore Kumar S N Vs Mr. Narasimha Prasad T K

Sri K Hanumantharayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.S. Krishnappa Vs the Commissioner