Dismissed

E Manohar v. the Chairman

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2024WP/55524/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a retired bank employee seeking mandamus to direct the Bank to release an amount of Rs.8,14,398 deducted from his terminal benefits. The Court held that the petitioner, who voluntarily opted for a pension scheme and authorized the recovery to settle his PF contribution, had no legal right to claim the amount back and cannot reverse his decision after av

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits.

E Manohar Vs the Chairman — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:6879 WP No. 55524 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 55524 OF 2016 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

E. MANOHAR, S/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDINGAT NO.326, GOA GARDEN, KALKERE CHANNA SANDRA, HORAMAVU POST, BENGALURU - 43.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE CHAIRMAN

¶12

Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CANARA BANK, JC ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶14

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK, H.R.M. SECTION, CIRCLE OFFICE-METRO, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE AMOUNT OF RS.8,14,398 TO

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:6879 WP No. 55524 of 2016

¶20

THE PETITIONER WITH APPLICABLE INTEREST FROM THE DATE 30.4.2014 TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The captioned petition is filed seeking a mandamus

¶24

against the respondents to release an amount of Rs.8,14,398/- to the petitioner with applicable interest from 30.04.2014 till the date of payment.

¶25

Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶26

The petitioner, who was working as a Manager while

¶27

he was in service, was placed under suspension and an article of charges was issued to the petitioner indicating that the petitioner is guilty of certain irregularities that took place while he was serving at the Bagepalli branch as a Manager. Though petitioner was imposed punishment of dismissal, the appellate authority modified the penalty of dismissal to reduction to a lower grade i.e., from MMG Scale II to JMG Scale I and further ordered to pay him a

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:6879 WP No. 55524 of 2016

¶29

basic pay fixed at Rs.17,120/-; consequently, the petitioner was reinstated to the service of the Bank.

¶30

The petitioner, in response to the communication sent by the respondent Bank, availed the pensionary benefit and while opting for the pension scheme, he requested the respondent Bank to adjust the amount of Rs.8,14,398/- post-dismissal out of his retiring benefits. At the request of petitioner, the Bank recovered the said amount out of remaining terminal benefits.

¶31

The petitioner, having opted for the pension scheme, after retirement has knocked the doors of the writ court by contending that the respondent Bank has forced petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.8,14,398/- and therefore, a mandamus is sought to direct the respondent Bank to pay an amount of Rs.8,14,398/-.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶33

learned counsel for the respondents. I have given my anxious consideration to the statement of objections filed by the respondent Bank.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:6879 WP No. 55524 of 2016

¶36

Before I advert to the relief sought in the

¶37

captioned petition, it would be useful for this Court to take cognizance of the letter communicated by the petitioner on 30.04.2015, which is placed on record by the respondent Bank at Annexure-R5. The letter reads as under:

¶38

"Earlier I was imposed with punishment of "Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment" vide proceedings IRS DP BLCR 0573 2008 dated 14.05.2008. On my exit in view of the said punishment, Bank had settled the following terminal benefits:-

¶39

1. Gratuity - Rs 3,50,000/2. PF Bank's Contribution - Rs 4,96,095.24

¶40

3. PF Employee's Contribution - Rs 1,53,581.24

¶41

Subsequently on filing appeal the above punishment of "Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment" was modified to "Reduction to a lower grade from MMG Scale II to JMG Scale I and his basic pay shall be fixed at Rs 17120/-" and I was reinstated into the services of the Bank.

¶42

At the time of rejoining though I should have returned the terminal benefits already settled, same could not be done due to financial constraints. Now because of this will be eligible for differential terminal benefits only on my superannuation.

¶43

I am also aware that pensionary benefit is paid in lieu of Bank's contribution to Provident Fund, as such during 2010 when I opted for pension vide my letter dated 15.10.2010 I should have remitted the Bank's

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:6879 WP No. 55524 of 2016

¶45

Contribution to PF along with interest which was already settled to me on 12.06.2008.

¶46

Therefore, now I am required to remit the said amount 1.e. Rs.8, 14,398/- (Rupees eight lakhs fourteen thousand three hundred ninety eight only), le. Bank's Contribution to PF along with interest at the rate which otherwise it would have earned to the SPF Fund, to enable them to transfer the same to Pension Fund.

¶47

I may be permitted to make funds available within 15.05.2014 towards the same.

¶48

Further I also authorize the Bank/ Gratuity/Provident Fund Trustees to recover the above said amount 1.e. Rs.8,14,398/- out of remaining terminal benefits payable to me by debiting my account 0404111609932.

¶49

This authority is irrevocable. I hereby specifically authorize the Canara Bank acting through any of its Officers, to sign any application/ letter/ receipt as required by the Trustee and the same shall be valid and binding on me as if I had myself signed the same.

¶50

Any such payment as stated above shall be valid discharge to the Gratuity/ Provident Fund Trustees / Bank for the amounts so paid and the same shall be binding on me and my heirs, executors and administrators.”

¶51

The petitioner’s claim that respondent Bank is

¶52

bound to pay an amount of Rs.8,14,398/-, which was deducted while petitioner opting for pension scheme is

¶53

found to be totally misconceived. It is borne out from the

¶54

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:6879 WP No. 55524 of 2016

¶55

records that, post penalty of dismissal, the petitioner has received the entire terminal benefits, which was settled. However, the Appellate authority has modified the penalty of dismissal and the petitioner was reinstated. Postreinstatement, the petitioner, having withdrawn the terminal benefits, was called upon by the respondent Bank either to opt for a provident fund (for short, 'PF') or avail Bank pension. Though petitioner availed pension scheme, failed to remit the Banks contribution of PF, which was paid to him on account of his dismissal. It is in this background, the petitioner, who had financial constraints, made a request to the respondent Bank to permit him to opt for a pension scheme and also consented to deduct the amount he had withdrawn from PF. On perusal of Annexure-R, it is clearly evident that at his request, he was permitted to opt for the pension scheme and at his request, an amount of Rs.8,14,398/- was transferred from his account, which was settled by way of terminal benefit. The petitioner, having voluntarily remitted back the employee's contribution towards the PF to avail pension

¶56

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:6879 WP No. 55524 of 2016

¶57

scheme, cannot now turn around and claim that the remittance of Rs.8,14,398/- from his account was forcible. Such a contention cannot be accepted. If the petitioner has voluntarily opted for a pension scheme and is receiving pension, the bank contribution of PF along with interest that was remitted voluntarily by the petitioner cannot be paid. The petitioner has no legal right to seek such a relief and correspondingly, the respondent Bank has no obligation to pay an amount of Rs.8,14,398/- that was recovered by the respondent Bank to enable the petitioner to avail pension scheme. This is not a fit case

¶58

where a mandamus lies.

¶59

The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed .

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

HDK CT: BHK

E Manohar v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E Manohar v. the Chairman

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

Sayed Anwar Vs the Managing Director Kptcl

Smt Savitha C M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Venkataravanappa Vs State of Karnataka

M.G.Ganesha Vs the Executive Director

Dr Suma B Sathenahali Vs the Government Dental College

Sri. Naveen Kumar H P Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited