Disposed

State Bank Retireees Association v. State Bank of India

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2024WP/6956/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a bank notification requiring life certificates for pension payment. Court determined the mandate is reasonable to prevent fraud but suggested follow-up procedures for pensioners unable to visit banks physically, relying on a coordinate bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

Dissent the petition. Writ petition stands disposed of with guidelines for banks to process claims within time limits if representation is received.

State Bank Retireees Association Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:9498 WP No. 6956 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 6956 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

STATE BANK RETIREEES ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SRI. C.N. PRASAD, S/O LATE SRI. C.R. NARAYAN RAO, R/A NO.14, NANJUNDESHWARA LAYOUT, 5TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078. REGISTERED UNDER TRADE UNION ACT, 1926.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANA GOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed STATE BANK OF INDIA, by CHAITHRA A REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, Location: HIGH COURT OF HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 2, KARNATAKA RACE COURSE ROAD, MADHAVA NAGAR, GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

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

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH NOTIFICATION DATED 03.06.2011 AT ANNX-C AS VOID AS THE SAME IS

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:9498 WP No. 6956 of 2023

¶18

VIOLATIVE OF EMPLOYEES PENSION REGULATION, 1995 AND MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 29.10.1993 AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The captioned petition is filed by the association assailing the notification dated 03.06.2011, as per Annexure-C, whereby the respondent scheduled Bank is insisting on production of life certificate to enable payment of pension.

¶22

This petition is filed by the association of

¶23

retirees/pensioners of respondent Bank, questioning the validity of the impugned notification as per Annexure-C on

¶24

the ground that it violates the Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 and Memorandum of Settlement dated 29.10.1993. The association claims that the respondent

¶25

Bank cannot deny the pension on the ground that the pensioner has to furnish a life certificate. Therefore, it is contended that stopping of pension without following the

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9498 WP No. 6956 of 2023

¶27

principles of natural justice takes away the rights of the pensioner to receive pension, which is a preexisting right.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating

¶29

the grounds urged in the petition, has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of H.Nagabhushana Rao vs. Under Secretary FFR Division-WZ Section Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya and others reported in 2023 SCC Online

¶30

Kar 5 . Placing reliance on the said judgment, counsel on record has vehemently argued and persuaded this Court to quash the impugned notification on the ground that the same is detrimental to the interest of pensioners who, on account of ill health, are not in a position to visit the bank physically and therefore, furnishing a living certificate virtually takes away the right of the pensioner to seek pension without any interruption.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Bank has, however, countered the petitioner's claim. Justifying the impugned notification, he would contend

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9498 WP No. 6956 of 2023

¶33

that the Bank is justified in insisting on production of life certificate and the very underlying object of insisting life certificate is to prevent fraud. The Bank, being a principal employer, is entitled to verify as to whether the pensioner is alive so as to receive a pension without any interruption. Therefore, this mandate of insisting on a survival certificate does not take away the rights of the pensioner. It is only an added layer of protection to see that dependent/family members do not enrich themselves by misusing the pensioner's amount post-death.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶35

learned counsel for respondent Bank. I have given my anxious consideration to the law declared by the coordinate Bench in H.Nagabhushana Rao's case.

¶36

It would be useful to extract the relevant portions of the judgment. Paragraphs No. 20 and 21 are extracted, which read as follows:

¶37

"20. The officers have displayed apathy to the cause of the petitioner in the peculiar circumstances of the case

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:9498 WP No. 6956 of 2023

¶40

by not taking the Life Certificate as by then the petitioner was 97 years old and was recipient of pension for a long time under the Scheme. Above all, all these submissions have been made and negatived by the coordinate Bench in the order quoted supra. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to all the arrears along with interest, as the Bank has failed to collect Life Certificate from the hands of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines. The Bank ought to have visited the petitioner and collected the Life Certificate and regulated pension. A caveat , not in every case the Bank is obliged to do so. In cases where there are genuine problems of pensioners who are unable to visit up to the Bank, it is the duty of the Bank officers to visit those persons and take Life Certificate and update them on the system. The pensioners could be septuagenarians, octogenarians, nonagenarians or centenarians like the petitioner. Therefore, this order cannot be construed to be sweeping direction in all cases where the Life Certificate has to be secured by the Bank officers, but in genuine cases, the Bank officers ought to perform their duty in terms of the guidelines so as to avoid unnecessary litigation of the kind that has been generated not once, twice, but three times.

¶41

21. Pension, is trite, not a bounty. In a broader significance, it is a measure of socio-economic justice, which inheres economic security, in the fall of life when physical and mental capabilities of a pensioner begins to ebb corresponding the aging process. The raison d'etre for grant of pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to such old age. This can be withheld, curtailed or taken away, only in accordance with law. Ebbing mental prowess and physical incapacity due to age was one of the prime reasons why the certificate could not be submitted in time. This, in the peculiar facts of this case, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed to take away the right of the petitioner for grant of pension, particularly, in the teeth of the guidelines. Therefore, the

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:9498 WP No. 6956 of 2023

¶44

Union of India and the Bank ought to have paid arrears of pension to the petitioner and not driven the petitioner to yet another round of litigation, third in line, at the age of 102 years. In view of the preceding analysis, the petitioner is held entitled to arrears of pension from 0111-2017 to 24-12-2018, coupled with interest and cost of litigation."

¶45

In the light of guidelines laid down by the

¶46

coordinate Bench, this court is of the view that the notification being a mandate, thereby insisting on life certificate from the pensioners, is not unreasonable or arbitrary and the same may not act as an hindrance for the pensioner to receive a pension without interruption, subject to production of life certificate. The co-ordinate Bench, while examining the issue, has rightly held that in the event a pensioner, on account of ill health, is not in a position to visit the Bank physically, the Bank officials are under bounden duty to visit the employees residence and verify as to whether he is alive or not. The Co-ordinate Bench has meticulously examined the potential ramifications of this requirement and has suggested alternatives to safeguard adverse effects on pensioners.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:9498 WP No. 6956 of 2023

¶49

The Co-ordinate Bench has rightly suggested less intrusive alternative and the same could achieve the objective without unduly burdening the old pensioners. These guidelines substantially protect the pensioner's right and therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned notification as per Annexure-C.

¶50

In the event a pensioner whose pension is suspended for want of life certificate, such a pensioner either personally or through association, is reserved with liberty to send a communication/representation and shall also furnish details of the denial of pension. If such a representation is received by the respondent Bank, they shall act on the said representation by sending a responsible officer within a period of two weeks and shall process and continue to pay the pension within four weeks thereon. If life certificates are already furnished by the pensioners, then it is a bounden duty of the respondent Bank to act on the life certificates and resume payment of

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:9498 WP No. 6956 of 2023

¶52

¶53

pension to the said respective pensioners in accordance

¶54

with law.

¶55

With there observations, the writ petition stands

¶56

disposed of .

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

HDK

State Bank Retireees Association v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank Retireees Association v. State Bank 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

Prof. Geetha C Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M. Rajendiran Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr S N Vasudevan Vs State of Karnataka

Ms Alfa S Vs the Chief Secreary

Mr Premachandra Vs Mr G T Nanjareddy

N C Krishnegowda Vs Executive Engineer