Quashed

Sri K L Muralidhar Pai v. Central Government of India

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2024WP/6665/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of a communication denying his pension eligibility after resigning from Canara Bank. Petitioner relied on Indian Banks Association communication equating compulsory and voluntary retirement for pension. Court disposed of petition, quashing the communication and requiring the bank to reconsider petitioner's representation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by quashing the fourth respondent's communication; petitioner reserved with liberty to file certified copy within 4 weeks; respondent to communicate decision within 3 months.

Sri K L Muralidhar Pai Vs Central… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25150 WP No. 6665 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6665 OF 2021 (S-R)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI K L MURALIDHAR PAI S/O LAKSHMAN PAI AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT 47/2, 5^TH CROSS, SBM COLONY MATHIKERE BANGALURU-560054.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K.L MURALIDHAR PAI.,PARTY IN PERSON)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110001 REPT BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶13

THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY OF FINANCE 3^RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING SANSAD MARG NEW DELHI-110001.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:25150 WP No. 6665 of 2021

¶16

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION WORLD TRADE CENTER COMPLEX CENTER-1, 6^TH FLOOR, CUFFE PARADE MUMBAI-400005.

¶17

SYNDICATE BANK NOW CANARA BANK HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARMENT STAFF WELFARE DIVISION CORPORATE WING MANIPAL WING MANIPAL-576104 REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.MAHADEVI R., CGC FOR R1 & R2; R4 SERVED UNREPRESENTED; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER 03.11.2022)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

¶21

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE LETTER DATED 15.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-4 AT ANNEXURE-A VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 20.11.20 IN WP 7338/20 OFFICE OBJECTIONS IN THIS WP ARE WAIVED.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:25150 WP No. 6665 of 2021

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is aggrieved by the fourth respondent's Communication dated 15.04.2019 [Annexure-A], and the fourth respondent, by this impugned Communication, has informed the petitioner that he will not be eligible to opt for pension scheme as he had resigned from service with the Bank with effect from 17.12.1990. The fourth respondent has issued this Endorsement referring to certain decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶27

The petitioner appears in person after he is issued with due Certificate under the relevant Rules and there is continued absence on behalf of the respondents, more specifically, the fourth respondent-Bank. In fact, this Court has heard the petitioner in detail on 22.06.2024 recording different canvass by him. The petition is adjourned to extend an opportunity to the fourth respondent-Bank. However, none appears despite this opportunity.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:25150 WP No. 6665 of 2021

¶30

Communication dated 16.03.2018 from Indian Banks Association [IBA] in support of his case that though he is relieved from service with effect from 17.12.1990, he would be entitled for pension because he had put in requisite qualifying years of service. The petitioner primarily contends that IBA has clarified that there cannot be any differentiation between those who have voluntarily retired or retired on superannuation or compulsorily retired or dismissed from service and that pension must be allowed in the case of those who have retired compulsorily.

¶31

The petitioner canvasses that if those who are compulsorily retired as a matter of punishment are admitted to pension, he must also be admitted to pension. As regards the option to be exercised under the Scheme/Rules, he submits that without due authorization he could not have exercised the option

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:25150 WP No. 6665 of 2021

¶34

but he is willing to refund every contribution received from the Bank along with interest. The detailed canvass by the petitioner as recorded by this Court on 22.06.2024 reads as under:

¶35

"Sri K. L. Muralidhar Pai, the petitioner who appears in person, submits that he was appointed with the fourth respondent as a Clerk on 18.09.1969 and with he tendering resignation on 15.05.1989, he is relieved from services on 17.12.1990 and thus he has completed more than 21 years of service. The petitioner contends that:

¶36

[a] he has come up with the present petition because his claim for pension under the Canara Bank [Employees'] Pension Regulations, 1995 [Regulations] is rejected notwithstanding Rule 3 of the Regulations which stipulate that an employee, who was in service on or after 01.01.1986 but has retired before 1.11.1993, would be entitled for pension,

¶37

[b] he is not able to exercise an option because he is not duly authorized and if he was permitted to exercise

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:25150 WP No. 6665 of 2021

¶40

an option within the notified date [29.09.1995], he could have exercised this option and be entitled for pension and even now he is willing to refund the Bank's contribution to the provident fund along with interest as is contemplated under these Rules,

¶41

[c] though Regulation 21¹ stipulate that an employee, who has resigned or dismissed or removed or terminated from services, would forfeit his entire services and qualification for pension benefits, the Indian Banks' Association vide its Communication dated 16.03.2018 has communicated that there cannot be any difference between those who have voluntarily retired or retired on superannuation or compulsorily retired or dismissed from services,

¶42

[d] if an employee, who is compulsorily retired or dismissed from services as punishment, is entitled for pension, the petitioner who has tendered resignation cannot be denied pension.

¶43

1 In the Order dated 22.06.2024, Regulation 21 is mentioned instead of Regulation 22[1]

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:25150 WP No. 6665 of 2021

¶46

It would suffice for this Court to observe

¶47

that the petitioner's request may have to be considered in the light of the specific contention, more specifically, his contention relying upon the IBA’s Communication dated 16.03.2018. The fourth respondent, if it can be opined that the petitioner will not be entitled to pension, will have to offer reasons therefor in the light of the petitioner's case as is canvassed and recorded by this Court. However, it is needless to observe that this Court has not considered the merits of the grounds but only enabled consideration thereof by the fourth respondent for a just and reasonable decision. Hence, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

[a] The petition stands disposed of quashing the fourth respondent's Communication dated 15.04.2019 [Annexure-A] calling upon this respondent to consider the

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:25150 WP No. 6665 of 2021

¶52

petitioner's representation in the light of the grounds urged before this Court and recorded as afore.

¶53

[b] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the fourth respondent within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of this order, and the fourth respondent is called upon to communicate its decision to the petitioner within three [3] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

AN/-

Sri K L Muralidhar Pai v. Central Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K L Muralidhar Pai v. Central Government of India

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

Smt Swaranalatha Vs the Union Public Service Commission

Sri. Sridhara K B Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Umashankar K.S Vs Karnataka Public Service Commission

Shri. Subraya R Hegde Vs Canara Bank

Sri Srinivasamurthy S/O Late Pillappa Vs Karnataka State Khadi & Village Industries Board

Sri Srinivasa Murthy Vs Karnataka State