Dismissed

Sri.G.R.Narayanaswamy v. the Deputy General Manager

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2024WP/55433/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner claimed unpaid pension and retirement dues outstanding since 2001. The court noted the respondent's memo indicated an offset against loan dues. The petitioner called for account details which the absent counsel could not produce. The petition was disposed of by directing the respondent to submit relevant acco

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to furnish relevant account details/documents in respect of the memo dated 03.07.2015 within one month.

Sri.G.R.Narayanaswamy Vs the Deputy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38669 WP No. 55433 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 55433 OF 2013 (S-R)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. G.R.NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE G.M. RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, EX-CLERK, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DOOR NO.322/2, 1^ST CROSS, D. SUBBAIAH ROAD, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE-572 024 …PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. R. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER MYSORE ZONE, ZONAL OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MYSORE-572 002 AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 08.06.2017 …RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI. R. NARAYANA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

¶12

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS, PERTAINING TO THE CASE AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO FORTHWITH PAY THE PENSION AND OTHER RETIRAL DUES THE PETITIOENR W.E.F. 11.01.2001 AND TO PAY THE SAME TOGETHER WITH BANK RATE OF INTEREST TOWARDS THE DELAYED PAYMENT AND CONTINUE TO PAY MONTHLY PENSION EVERY MONTH, AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE.

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38669 WP No. 55433 of 2013

¶14

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

The petitioner has sought for the following relief in this writ petition:

¶18

"(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondent to forthwith pay the pension and other Retiral Dues the petitioner w.e.f. 11.01.2001 and to pay the same together with Bank rate of interest towards the delayed payment, and continue to pay monthly pension every month, as expeditiously as possible, to meet the ends of justice."

¶19

The petitioner contends that he joined services of the respondent as a Clerk on 21.02.1979. He was discharged from service by an order dated 11.01.2001. He claimed that he was entitled to pension, DCRG and other retirement benefits which, for reasons unknown, was not settled. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru which passed an

¶20

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38669 WP No. 55433 of 2013

¶21

order dated 24.08.2007 in C.R. No.62/2003 and rejected the reference. This was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.17177/2007 which too was rejected in terms of the order dated 13.11.2008. This Court while rejecting the writ petition referred above, directed the respondent-bank to settle all monetary benefits as expeditiously as possible, at any rate not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The petitioner contends that despite the above, the respondent-bank did not settle the monetary benefits. The petitioner contends that he had opted for pension under the 'State Bank of Mysuru Employees' Pension Scheme, 1993 which is evident from the letter dated 28.09.1994. Therefore, the petitioner contends that once he contributed to the fund, he was entitled to receive monthly pension with effect from 11.02.2001. The petitioner contends that he submitted several representations demanding monthly pension, first of which was on 08.06.2003 and the next was on 16.02.2009. However, none of the representations evoked any response from the respondents. He thereafter sent a notice through an advocate on 18.06.2009. Even then, the respondents did not take any action which prompted the petitioner to submit another letter

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:38669 WP No. 55433 of 2013

¶24

dated 09.04.2012 which too did not evoke any response. The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking for the aforementioned reliefs.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

¶26

soon after the discharge of the petitioner, the respondents were bound to pay the pension, as the petitioner had enrolled into a pension scheme formulated by the employees of State Bank of Mysore. He submitted that once the petitioner had contributed to a pension fund, he was entitled to draw pension after his discharge. He contends that the respondents also did not pay the terminal benefits. He therefore contends that the petitioner is entitled to interest for the delayed payment of pension as well as retirement dues.

¶27

The learned counsel for the respondents is absent and therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his submission. However, records discloses that the respondents had filed a memo on 03.07.2015 contending as follows:

¶28

"MEMO FILED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶29

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38669 WP No. 55433 of 2013

¶30

The Respondent furnishes the details of the payments made to the Petitioner and also particulars of adjustments made in respect of amounts due by him.

¶31

(1) Provident Fund due on 29.02.2004	- Rs.80,747/-
Less SBM Co-op Credit Society dues	- Rs.43,004/-
Net payable	________________________________ - Rs.37,743/-_
(2) Gratuity credited on 31.05.2004
Vide Cheque No.955643	- Rs.1,21,173/-
Total	_____________ - Rs.1,58,916/-_
(3) Less Amounts adjusted against
the loans payments due from the Petitioner
Festival advance Rs.4,172/-
Consumer Loan Rs.1,434.26
Personal Loan Rs.39,254.14
Computer Loan Rs.32,187.74
Computer Loan Rs.81,918.86
_____________ Less Total -_	Rs.1,58,916/-
Amount due to the Petitioner	- Nil

¶32

(4) Pension payable to the Petitioner - Rs.10,13,939/-

¶33

___________ Amount due - Nil_

¶34

The said amount was credited on 06.04.2015 in view of the Judgment of

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38669 WP No. 55433 of 2013

¶36

the Supreme Court in the case of Bank

¶37

of Baroda Vs. S.K.Kool reported in 2014 SCC (2) 175.

¶38

The above particulars had been furnished to the Petitioner by letter dated 26.07.2013 by the Respondent.

¶39

(5) Amounts due by the Petitioner to the Bank

¶40

Demand Loan personal - Rs.11,289.80/Interest on Housing Loan Staff - Rs.99,741.19/Simple interest on Housing Loan - Rs.2,18,802/Housing Loan Commercial - Rs.2,54,325.37/_____________

¶41

Total due by the Petitioner to the Respondent - Bank - Rs.5,84,158.36/-

¶42

In fact the Petitioner owes to the Bank the aforesaid sum and no other sums are payable to the Petitioner by the Respondent - Bank.

¶43

So it is submitted that no amounts are due to the Petitioner and in fact the Petitioner is due to pay the Respondent - Bank the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,84,158.36."

¶44

This memo is not contested by the petitioner. However, an application is filed by the petitioner calling for the

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38669 WP No. 55433 of 2013

¶46

account particulars of all the amounts shown in the memo. Since learned counsel for the respondent is absent, this Court could not call upon him to furnish the details of the accounts of the petitioner. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was discharged from service with effect from 11.01.2001. If the petitioner had subscribed to a pension scheme and had contributed to pension fund, the respondent cannot deny the benefit of monthly pension payable to the petitioner.

¶47

Similarly, the petitioner was also entitled to terminal benefits after his discharge from service. The respondent in the ordinary course was bound to settle the terminal benefits as well as the pension within a reasonable time and the delay if any, would make the respondent liable to pay interest. However, since it is stated by the respondent in the memo dated 03.07.2015 that the petitioner is not entitled to any amount, as the petitioner was himself liable to pay sum of Rs.5,84,158.36/-, the writ petition deserves to be disposed off by directing the respondent to furnish the details/documents of all the particulars mentioned in the memo dated 03.07.2015,

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38669 WP No. 55433 of 2013

¶49

so that the petitioner could reconcile the amount payable by him to the respondent.

¶50

In that view of this writ petition is disposed off, by directing the respondent to furnish the relevant account details/cost sheet etc., in respect of the entries found in the memo dated 03.07.2015 filed by the respondent, referred supra. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶53

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Sri.G.R.Narayanaswamy v. the Deputy General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.G.R.Narayanaswamy v. the Deputy General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Y. B. Raghavendra Vs the General Manager (a and Hr)

Shri Suraj Jayadeep Sunita Vs Vijaya Bank

Sri Santosh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ashwathanarayana T v Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Sreedhara C G Vs State of Karnataka

S N Shivashankar Vs the State of Karnataka