Nandish S/O Basappa Guddappanavar Vs the Managing Director and CEO

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, OR DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS TO THE RESPONDENT BANK, THE CANARA BANK CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 112, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001, TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS CLAIM OF PENSIONORY BENEFITS; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE LETTERS ISSUED BY THE SYNDICATE BANK MANAGEMENT THEN, DENYING THE PENSIONERY BENEFIT TO THE PETITIONER BEFORE ITS MERGER WITH THE CANARA BANK A LETTER DATED 07.08.2018 PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D AND A LETTER DATED 03.11.2018 PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC-D:901 WP No. 101828 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner, a retired officer of the erstwhile Syndicate Bank, (now merged with Canara Bank), is seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent-bank to extend pensionary benefits and also costs the endorsement/letters dated 07.08.2018 and 03.11.2018, by which, his request for pension was declined.

¶24

Brief facts:

¶25

The petitioner joined the bank on 30.06.1976 and retired on 31.05.2012 on attaining superannuation. His case is that pension was introduced in the bank with effect from 29.09.1995 and being in service, he was eligible to be covered, however, pension was not paid even after retirement despite his representation and willingness to return provident fund amount. The respondent-bank rejected his claim by communications dated 07.08.2018 and 03.11.2018, on the ground that he had not opted for pension and therefore is not entitled.

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:901 WP No. 101828 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

During pendency, petitioner filed I.A.No.2/2025,

¶29

seeking a direction to the bank to produce the file relating to P.F.Account No.8134 stating that such record would support his case.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pension is a beneficial for social security measure, he claims entitlement based on the length of service and introduction of pension scheme during his tenure. He submits that I.A.No.2/2025 is filed and asserts that he opted for “pension scheme in 1995”, and that the petitioner had submitted option on 16.04.1998 through the branch at Dharwad hence, he seeks production of the relevant P.F/pension records.

¶31

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondentbank opposes I.A.No.2/2025 stating that despite search, no PF file as claimed P.F. Account No.8134 is available. Only an extract of register relating to P.F/gratuity settlement has been traced and produced as Annexure-R2. Learned counsel for the respondent specifically contends that the plea of opting in 1995 is false and created to suit the claim, importantly, the

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC-D:901 WP No. 101828 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

petitioner did not plead in the main writ petition that he opted for pension in 1995, and his own case in the writ petition is only that he, “did not reject pension”, which does not amount to exercising an option.

¶36

This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on records.

¶37

7. The point that arises for consideration is:

¶38

“Whether the petitioner has established that he exercised/ opted for coverage under the bank's pension scheme, so as to orient interference with the bank's rejection and grant of pensionary benefits?

¶39

The relief sought is not a mere computation or release of an admitted benefit, it rests on the petitioner establishing the foundational eligibility fact i.e., that he was a valid member and had opted under the pension scheme. The consistent stand of the respondent-bank is that the pension was denied because the petitioner did not opt and therefore he is not entitled.

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC-D:901 WP No. 101828 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The applicable scheme is the Syndicate Bank (Employees) Pensions Regulation, 1994, (commonly referred to as SBEPS, 1995). Regulation 3(3) reads as under:

¶44

“3. Application: These regulations shall apply to employees who, -

¶45

(1) xxx

¶46

(2) xxx

¶47

(3) (a) are in the service of the Bank before the notified date and continue to be in the service of the Bank on or after the notified date; and

¶48

(b) exercise an option in writing within one hundred and twenty days from the notified date to become member of the Fund; and

¶49

(c) authorise the trust of the Provident Fund of the Bank to transfer the entire contribution of the Bank along with the interest accrued thereon to the credit of the Fund constituted for the purpose under Regulation 5; or

¶50

xxxx”

¶51

Regulation 3(3) makes it clear that the pension

¶52

regulations apply only to those employees, who exercise an option to be governed by the pension scheme in lieu of the

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC-D:901 WP No. 101828 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

contributory provident fund. The employees, who were in service as on the cut off date 29.09.1995 were required to exercise a written option within the time stipulated by the bank through circulars. The scheme is not automatic, exercise of option is a condition precedent for coverage under the pension scheme. Merely being in service on the cut-off date or “not rejecting”, pension does not amount to opting under Regulation 3. In the absence of such an option, pensionary benefits cannot be claimed. No documentary proof of option is produced. The request is based on a bald assertion. Though the petitioner claims in I.A.No.2/2025 that he opted and submitted option on 16.04.1998, he has not produced any contemporaneous documents like the acknowledgment, receipt, or copy of the option form.

¶57

On the other hand, the bank has stated that the specific PF file sought is not traceable and only an extract Annexure-R2 is available. In the absence of any material from the petitioners to show the exercise of option, this Court cannot issue a mandamus to confer pensionary benefits as

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC-D:901 WP No. 101828 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

though option is proved. The impugned communication decline pension cannot be termed illegal on the record placed. The rejection letters dated 07.08.2018 and 03.11.2018 proceed on the ground of non-option and since the petitioner has failed to establish the contrary by pleadings and proof, the decision of the bank does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

The writ petition is dismissed .

¶64

Pending IAs, if any, would not survive for consideration.

¶65

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶66

AT Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Nandish S/O Basappa Guddappanavar v. the Managing Director and CEO

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandish S/O Basappa Guddappanavar v. the Managing Director and CEO

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Siddaraj B.K. S/O B.K. Mukkanna, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sachin Dyavangouda Patil Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax

Smt S Mahaboobjan Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Ratnavva W/O. Mahadevappa Hallikeri Vs the State of Karnataka

Shadilal Chitram Sharma Vs the State of Karnataka

Bharamagouda S/O Andaneppagouda Gajigoudar Vs the State of Karnataka