Petitioner, an ex-employee of State Bank of Travancore, sought pension after his removal was judicially modified to discharge. The bank rejected the claim filed in 2010 for missing the 1996 option window, despite the right restoring later. The court dismissed the writ as lacking merit.
Awaiting final order as the petition was dismissed for default.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/30TH MAGHA, 1936
WP(C).No. 34384 of 2010 (W)
PETITIONER(S):
JAMES C.MATHEW, NISHA BHAVAN, SFS SEMINARY ROAD, ETTUMANOOR.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA, SMT.MANJU R.KARTHA.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE AT POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012, REP. BY ITS MANAGING, DIRECTOR.
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012.
BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Dismissed for default.
19/02/2015.
SD/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
W.P.(C).No.34384 of 2010
Dated this the 1st day of November, 2016
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed by an ex-employee of State Bank of Travancore, alleging denial of pension in terms of SBT (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995.
“Accordingly I modify the punishment of removal from service in to discharge so as to enable the workman to get all his retirement benefits. Subject to that all the actions of management are confirmed.”
Therefore, the right of the petitioner to get retirement benefit has been resurrected by Ext.P1 award.
W.P.C.No.34384/10
2
W.P.C.No.34384/10 3
service. He also submitted that there was a challenge against the award of the Tribunal by the Bank. He also admit that he also challenged the award before this Court. According to him he could exercise option only after the disposal of the writ petition by this Court challenging the award. This Court disposed the original petition filed by the bank as well as the petitioner as per Ext.P2 common judgment on 24.03.2010, affirming the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam. The matter was carried in writ appeal. The Division Bench also affirmed the decision of the single Judge. Writ appeal was disposed on 09.09.2010. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he immediately exercised option by Ext.P4 for sanction of pension in terms of the Regulation. On the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner ought to have been submitted the option with the time limit prescribed in the Regulation and there was time fixed for the refund of provident fund obtained. It is further submitted that petitioner slept over his right in spite of the fact that an order in his favour has been passed by the Tribunal as early as on 15.12.1999.
W.P.C.No.34384/10
4
that the petitioner could not have exercised the option in terms of Regulation as he was dismissed from the service at the time new Regulations were notified. However, it is to be noted that the cause of action arose to the petitioner immediately when the Tribunal delivered its award converting dismissal as a discharge. The petitioner could have very well exercised the option at the relevant point of time. He could have also taken up the matter along with a challenge made by him before this Court as against the award to exercise such an option before the Bank. When the right to claim pensionary benefits has been restored to him by the award of Tribunal, the petitioner ought to have been diligent enough to exercise his right to option for claiming pension in terms of SBT (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. The petitioner made his claim only in the year 2010. Certainly, this Court is of the view that the bank has right to reject the claim for pension in terms of the Regulation at that distance of time. I do not find any merit in this writ petition and therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- (A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE) TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
DG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bank was justified in rejecting the petitioner's pension claim filed in 2010 after deleting the dismissal in a disciplinary dispute in 1999.
Whether the petitioner was diligent in exercising his option to claim pension under the 1995 regulations shortly after the right was restored by the industrial tribunal award.
JAMES C.MATHEW
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
