Dismissed

Chairman & Managing Director v. v.Radhakrishnan Nair

Kerala HC23 Jul 2013WA/535/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Bank's appeal, holding that an employee who obtained a post-graduate degree under a recognized scheme without prior graduate qualification is entitled to graduate benefits under a bipartite settlement, distinguishing precedents where basic post qualification was required for the role itself.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no costs to the appellant.

Chairman & Managing Director Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2013/1ST SRAVANA, 1935

¶7

W.A.No.535 of 2009

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.No.9724/2002, DATED 20-11-2008, OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶9

APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS:-

¶10

THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, BANGALORE.

¶11

CANARA BANK EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, BANGALORE.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SENIOR ADVOCATE) SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON.

¶13

RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER:-

¶14

SRI.V.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, KEZHE PUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR OVERBRIDGE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN.

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶17

W.A.NO.535 OF 2009

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

APPELLANTS' ANNEXURE:-

¶20

ANNEXURE-1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).25542/2004.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-

¶22

NIL.

¶23

( true copy )

¶24

Manjula Chellur, C.J. & K.Vinod Chandran, J.

¶25

W.A.No.535 of 2009

¶26

Dated this, the 23^rd day of July, 2013

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

K.Vinod Chandran,J.

¶29

Though three issues were raised in the writ petition,

¶30

only one survives for consideration in the appeal, filed by the respondent-Bank. The issue that survives for consideration is the entitlement of the respondent for graduate allowance.

¶31

On facts, suffice it to say that the respondent while working in the Bank had acquired post graduate qualification under the Open University Scheme; without having acquired a graduate qualification. As per the bipartite settlement, the respondent was also granted the increments due, being two increments. The further entitlement, as per the bipartite settlement, is undoubtedly a graduate allowance to be granted at the time when an employee having the requisite qualification reaches the maximum of the scale.

¶32

Before the respondent reached the maximum of the scale, it is contended that there was a clarification issued by the Indian Banks' Association (“IBA” for short) that persons acquiring a post graduate qualification without graduate qualification will not

¶33

¶34

W.A.No.535 of 2009

¶35

be entitled either to increments or the allowance. However, it is contended by the appellant-Bank that the increments granted were not withdrawn, but the allowance to be granted at the time of reaching the maximum pay was declined on the basis of the above clarification.

¶36

The learned counsel for the appellant-Bank strenuously contends that for the purpose of increment and allowance, what is required is a graduate qualification and the clarification makes it explicit that a post graduation without a graduate qualification would not entitle an employee to the benefits conferred on a graduate. Such clarification of the IBA, the learned counsel seeks to sustain and also urges that it is not a modification of the settlement. The learned counsel places reliance on the decision in Sujatha v. State of Kerala [1998 (2) KLT 809], wherein it was held that:

¶37

“Graduation can only mean, basic graduate degree and not a post-graduate degree”.

¶38

Primarily we do not think that the IBA could have brought out any clarification regarding the benefits conferred under a bipartite settlement. The distinction between modification and clarification, as is urged by the learned counsel, is of no consequence. In any event, it is clear that the Bank had conferred the benefit of graduation increment on implementation of the bipartite settlement.

¶39

¶40

W.A.No.535 of 2009

¶41

Withdrawal or rather the denial of graduation allowance, which also was a part of the bipartite settlement, was declined by reason of the clarification alone. We are of the opinion that post graduation being a qualification higher than and above that of graduation, it would not be proper to decline the benefit of increment and allowance granted by a settlement, to those post graduates who had applied for and after coming out successful in the examination; obtained the higher qualification of post graduation; that too under a recognized scheme of a University, which does not stipulate the essential qualification of graduation for getting admission to the post graduation course.

¶42

Sujatha's case ( supra ) was one in which the Public Service Commission had issued a notification for appointment wherein the qualification prescribed for the post was graduation from any recognized University. It was only in that context that a learned Single Judge of this Court found that it cannot be a post graduate degree. We also notice that in paragraph 5 of the decision, the notification providing the qualification of graduation was noticed by the learned Single Judge and the aforementioned finding was rendered. In the instant case, it is not a question of basic qualification that arises. Graduation was made a condition for giving some additional benefit by way of increment and allowance, presumably for the purpose of encouraging pursuit of higher studies. When an employee, who did

¶43

W.A.No.535 of 2009 - 4 -

¶44

not have the opportunity or capacity to go for graduate studies, obtains a post graduation under an accepted scheme of study, which does not warrant graduate qualification as a prescription for admission; we cannot deny the benefit granted under a bipartite settlement on technical grounds. This is more so when obviously the understanding of the employer as to the terms of the scheme was later clarified by an unilateral decision of the IBA; which we are unable to sustain.

¶45

In the circumstances stated above, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not liable to be interfered with and we dismiss the appeal, however with no costs.

¶46

Sd/Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice

¶47

Sd/K.Vinod Chandran, Judge.

¶48

vku/

¶49

( true copy )

Chairman & Managing Director v. v.Radhakrishnan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chairman & Managing Director v. v.Radhakrishnan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Employees Provident Fund Organisation Vs M/S.Sri.Kamashy Agency (P) Ltd.

Sajitha.a Vs K.a.Muhammed Ismail

P.a.Chandran Vs State of Kerala

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M.Muraleedharan Nair

Secretary, Thalore Service Co-Operative Bank LT.NO.435 Vs C.M.Indira

Dr.Joyce Mammen Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner