Shri Jilani Havaldar S.O. Imamsab Havaldar Vs State Bank of India

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15975 WP No. 105257 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 105257 OF 2025 (S-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHRI. JILANI HAVALDAR S/O. IMAMSAB HAVALDAR, AGE: 70 YRS, OCC: RETIRED R/O: 2021 SIDDHARTHA COLONY, 3^RD CROSS, OPP NEW BUS STAND, DHARWAD 580 008, KARNATAKA.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶11

STATE BANK OF INDIA, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, MADAM CAMA ROAD, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA - 400 021, RPT. BY ITS MANAGING DIRETOR.

¶12

STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, ST. MARKS ROAN, BENALURU - 560 001, REPT BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER.

¶13

STATE BANK OF INDIA, HUMAN RESOURCED DEPT., LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, ST. MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. RPTD. BY ITS DEPUTY

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15975 WP No. 105257 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

GENERAL MANGER HRD.

¶18

STATE BANK OF INDIA, HIREKERUR BRANCH, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI 581 111, REPT. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.

¶19

STATE BANK OF INDIA, DHARWAD MAIN BRANCH, COLLEGE ROAD, TQ AND DIST DHARWAD - 580 008, REPT. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT CERTIORARI QUASHING THE LETTERS DATED 28/03/2014, 04/04/2014, AND 28/04/2014 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q, ANNEXURE-R, AND ANNEXURE-S. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE PETITIONER HIS UNPAID LEGITIMATE PROVIDENT FUND AMOUNT OF RS.5,56,408/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT 12% PER ANNUM AND DAMAGES AS CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONER IN HIS REPRESENTATIONS DATED 08/01/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE - V TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15975 WP No. 105257 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶29

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶30

following reliefs:

¶31

A. Issue a Writ Certiorari quashing the letters dated 28/03/2014, 04/04/2014, and 28/04/2014 passed by Respondent no.5 vide Annexure-Q, Annexure-R, and Annexure-S.

¶32

B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to pay the Petitioner his unpaid legitimate Provident fund amount of Rs.5,56,408/- along with interest at 12% per annum and damages as claimed by the Petitioner in his representations dated 08/01/2025 vide Annexure - V to meet the ends of justice and equity.

¶33

C. Pass any such other orders as deemed fit by this Hon’ble court to meet the ends of justice and equity.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Shivaraj Ballolli, appearing for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.K.L.Patil, appearing for respondents No.1 to 5.

¶35

Facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶36

The petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Bank as

¶37

a clerk. After about 28 years of service, owing to certain omissions and commissions, the petitioner came to be dismissed from service. The dismissal was challenged before this Court and this Court modified the order of dismissal to one of compulsory retirement. The said modification made by the learned Single

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15975 WP No. 105257 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Judge is tossed before the Division Bench and the Division Bench is seized the matter.

¶41

The issue in the lis does not pertain to the merit of the petitioner’s dismissal or otherwise. The issue concerns provident fund amount. The records reveal that the petitioner's provident fund both his contribution and the management's contribution was received by the Bank from the hands of the Provident fund authorities on 01.10.2009 and that the petitioner, owing to certain circumstances, thereafter accepted or gave his consent for the provident fund amount, including both contributions, to be adjusted towards the housing loan.

¶42

The learned counsel Sri.Shivaraj Balloli submits that prior to the adjustment of the provident fund amount towards the housing loan, a sum of ₹2,00,000/- had been adjusted towards the petitioner’s overdraft account, which, according to the learned counsel was done without the petitioner’s consent.

¶43

Be that as it may, the provident fund was admittedly received on 01.10.2009. The consent for adjustment of the entire provident fund happens on 12.03.2013. Therefore, the provident fund amount remained in the coffers of the Bank from 01.10.2009 to 12.03.2013. The amount includes both the

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15975 WP No. 105257 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

provident fund contribution of the Bank and provident fund contribution of the employee-the petitioner.

¶47

Though the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the banking industry, as they have sought exemption under Section 17 of the Provident Fund Act, they are governed by their own Provident Fund Rules. Rules or no Rules; provision or no provision. Any amount lying with the bank cannot but yield interest, failing which it would amount to unjust enrichment by the Bank. The amount admittedly remained with the bank from 01.10.2009 to 12.03.2013, for close to 3 years and 7 months. Therefore, interest as is applicable for any provident fund amount must be paid to the petitioner, as the provident fund amount rightfully belongs to the petitioner.

¶48

The learned counsel Sri.K.L.Patil submits that as on 01.10.2009 the petitioner was a dismissed employee and in terms of the Provident Fund Rules of the Bank, an employee would not become entitled to management's contribution to provident fund, much less its interest if he is a dismissed employee. The said submission would become unacceptable in

¶49

the light of the plethora of judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate benches of this Court, which hold that the provident

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15975 WP No. 105257 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

fund amount cannot be withheld on any score as the provident fund amount belongs to the employee.

¶53

The petitioner has consented to the adjustment towards loan not only of the provident fund amount which is his contribution, but also the provident fund amount which was Bank's contribution as well. Therefore, it was the money of the petitioner that ought to have been transferred to the petitioner way back on 01.10.2009, when it came into the coffers of the Bank. The Bank keeps it for close to four years and thereafter adjusted it towards the housing loan. The period of nearly four years during which the amount remained with the Bank cannot be without accrual of interest, as the amount constitutes provident fund.

¶54

The learned counsel Sri.K.L.Patil would now submits that the petitioner, having consented on 12.03.2012 to the adjustment of the loan without claiming any interest, must be deemed to have waived his right to claim such interest. The said submission is noted to be rejected for the reason that the petitioner if the interest is statutory ordained or an employee is entitled to any except on express waiver, inferred waiver cannot mean that the interest would be denied to the petitioners.

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15975 WP No. 105257 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following order:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The letters dated 28.03.2014, 04.04.2014 and 28.04.2014 issued by respondent No.5 vide Annexure-Q, R and S respectively, are hereby quashed.

¶60

(iii) A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent-Bank to calculate interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the provident fund amount for the period from 01.10.2009 to 12.03.2013 and to pay the same to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶61

(iv) In the event the Bank fails to pay the aforesaid amount within the stipulated eight weeks, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest, on the provident fund amount from 01.10.2009 till the date the amount reaches the doors of the petitioner.

¶62

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶63

RHR/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Shri Jilani Havaldar S.O. Imamsab Havaldar v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Jilani Havaldar S.O. Imamsab Havaldar v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushma Vs the Director

Vitthal Nagappa Khot Vs the Executive Engineer (Ele)

Sri Parappa I Hulakund Vs the State of Karnataka

Satheesh Chandra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Mathad Gurubasavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt B.S.Pushpabai Vs the Disciplinary and Chief Executive Officer