Allowed

T.K.Uthaman v. State Bank of India SBI

Kerala HC23 Sept 2021WP(C)/12733/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a pension claim by a retired State Bank of Travancore employee with 18 years and 9 months of service. Relying on the Indian Banks Association Bipartite Settlement of 2010 and subsequent judgments, the court held the 15-year service minimum applicable. The previous dismissal was deemed non-binding as the bank failed to cite the relevant settlements, and the employee had not v

What did the court decide?

Declared petitioner entitled to pension benefits under the 2010 Bipartite Settlement; directed respondents to calculate and pay due pensionary benefits and issue revised pension pay order within two m

T.K.Uthaman Vs State Bank of India SBI — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 12733 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

T.K.UTHAMAN AGED 68 YEARS S/O. KUTTAPPAN, THEKKINEZHATATH HOUSE (PANAD) THATTAMPADY, KARUMALLOOR P.O, N. PARAVUR, PIN 683511

¶8

BY ADVS. GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) K.S.SANTHI ALEXY AUGUSTINE LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN GEORGE A.CHERIAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE BANK OF INDIA SBI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, WITH ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT MADAME CAMA ROAD, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021

¶11

2 STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, S.S KOVIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR, TRIVANDRUM 695 001 BY ADV P.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 9.09.2021, THE COURT ON 23/9/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC No.12733/2021

JUDGMENT

The petitioner retired from the service of State Bank of Travancore on 31/3/2001 under the SBT Voluntary retirement scheme (circular No.2/2001 dated 20/1/2001). Under the VRS scheme,persons who have put in 15 years of service or have completed 40 years of age as on 31/1/2001, were eligible to claim the benefit of scheme and thereby,they were entitled to various terminal benefits, including pension in terms of State Bank of Travancore(Employees)Pension Regulation 1995. Subsequently, State Bank of India, acquired by way of amalgamation, the business, including the assets and liabilities of the State Bank of Travancore, by virtue of the Provisions of State Bank of India Act, 1955 on 12/2/2017.

¶17

According to the petitioner,he had entered service of the State Bank of Travancore on 1979 and has thereby put in 21 years and four months of service. Though he was given various benefits, by Ext.P2 communication, he was informed that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of qualifying service as per regulation No.29 of the State Bank of Travancore(Employees)Pension Regulations, 1995 and hence not entitled for pension.This is challenged in this writ petition.

¶18

Petitioner contended that the Government of India by Ext.P3 communication dated 5/9/2000, had directed Indian Bank Associations to work out modalities and to suggest amendments required to be made to the pension regulations to ensure that employees with 15 years of service also

¶19

WPC No.12733/2021

¶20

¶21

get the benefit of pension. By Ext.P4 communication, the Indian Banks Association addressed all public sector banks to make necessary amendments to regulation No.28, to extend the benefit to employees who had retired under the special scheme. Though the Government of India had directed the SBI to carry out necessary amendments in the pension Regulations of Associate Banks of SBI by Ext.P5 communication, the State Bank of India did not amend the State Bank of Travancore(Employees) Pension regulations, 1995.

¶22

Another contention of the petitioner was that, by virtue of Regulation 2(y) of pension Regulation 1995, read with Regulation 14, the persons who have rendered minimum ten years of service on the date of retirement, is entitled for pension. However, in the meanwhile, several similarly situated persons who had availed the VRS scheme had approached this court seeking the benefit of pension. Petitioner filed W.P. (C) No.19093/2006 seeking the relief. In Ext.P6 counter affidavit, it was stated that the petitioner had put in 18 years and 9 months service at the time of retirement and in the light of Regulation 29 which prescribed minimum 20 years of qualifying service, the petitioner was held to be not entitled for the benefit. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

¶23

Yet another contention of the petitioner was that, Ext.P7 Bipartite settlement dated 27/4/2010 was entered into between the Indian Banks Association and the workmen on 27/4/2010. By virtue of the bipartite settlement, the employees who had ceased to be in service after 29/9/1995

¶24

WPC No.12733/2021

¶25

¶26

in case of Nationalized Banks, and in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India on 26/3/1996 on account of voluntary retirement under special scheme after completing service for a minimum period of 15 years shall be entitled to exercise the option to join the pension scheme, subject to the terms and conditions. Thereafter, several retired employees of State Bank of Travancore who were denied pension, moved this Court. By Ext.P8 judgment in W.P.(C) No.26563/2012, it was declared that the petitioners therein and who were similarly situated as that of the petitioners were entitled for pension under the bipartite settlement and also under the State Bank of Travancore Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The bank challenged the above judgment in W.A.No.947/2014 and connected cases, which were dismissed by Ext.P9 judgment, confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner moved this court by filing W.P.(C) No.19093/2006 which was dismissed by Ext.P10, holding that the petitioner was not entitled for pension, though he had service of 18 years and 9 months as per Ext.P6 counter affidavit.

¶27

In the present writ petition, the petitioner claimed that he was not aware of the proceedings initiated by others which resulted in Ext.P8 and Ext.P9 judgment and was informed only recently about Ext.P9 judgments in the writ appeal and that the persons having a minimum period of 15 years service are eligible for pension. Hence, he submitted representation on 26/3/2019 as Ext.P11, which was not replied, is the grievance of the petitioner.

¶28

WPC No.12733/2021

¶29

¶30

The petitioner has approached this court in this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner the pensionary benefits due to him from the date of retirement, in the light of Exts.P7 to P9, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

¶31

The respondents filed a joint statement contending that the petitioner was not entitled for pension since he had not completed the minimum qualifying service. Accordingly, he is not entitled for pension in the light of State Bank of Travancore(Employees) Pension Regulation 1995. He did not have the requisite qualifying service. It was also contended that the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.19093/2006 five years after his retirement, seeking pension and also challenging Regulation 17 of the State Bank of Travancore(Employees) Pension Regulations, which prescribed 20 years of qualifying service. The bank took the contention that the petitioner had not satisfied the requirement of 20 years of qualifying service, which was accepted by the court. The writ petition was dismissed by Ext.P10 judgment directing the petitioner to approach the Board of Governors of the Bank, to regularise the loss of pay, if such remedy was available. It was further contended that, though by Exts.P8 and P9 judgments, this court had held that employees retired under VRS 2001, who have completed the minimum eligibility criteria of 15 years, are entitled to pension, however, the petitioner had not, at any point of time, sought any such relief or benefit. He had claimed pension on the ground that he had completed 20 years of service and even challenged Regulation 17 of the Pension Regulation to

¶32

WPC No.12733/2021

¶33

¶34

canvas his claim for qualifying service of 20 years. Those contentions were repelled by Ext.P10 judgment. Hence, at this length of time, petitioner cannot claim that right which was not advanced till now, it was contended.

¶35

The petitioner claimed pension on the ground that , he was governed by Regulation 14 of the SBT employees pension Regulations, which qualify a person who had rendered minimum ten years of service on the date of retirement. Petitioner relied on regulation 2(y) of the pension Regulation and regulation 14 to substantiate it. At the outset, I am not inclined to accept that contention, since that relates to normal retirement under the SBT employees pension regulations, 1995. Evidently, the regulation that applies in this case is regulation 29 and hence the above contention is not sustainable.

¶36

The claim of the petitioner was set up on the premise that he had completed 20 years of qualifying service. According to the petitioner, he joined service in 1979 and accordingly, had put in 21 years and 4 months service. It seems that the petitioner had availed leave on several occasions during the above tenure. There is nothing on record to show that the leave has been regularised. The claim of 20 years of qualifying service is set up on the basis that, if the leave is regularised, he is entitled for the qualifying service of 20 years. It seems that at no point of time earlier, the petitioner had sought for regularisation of leave and no attempt was made by the respondent also to get it sanctioned. Further, this plea of 20 years was rejected by the learned Single Judge by Ext.P10 judgment. Hence it is to be

¶37

WPC No.12733/2021

¶38

¶39

held that the petitioner has not attained the qualifying service of 20 years, and as seen from the records, had put in 18 years and 9 months service. Hence, the claim on that basis is also liable to be rejected.

¶40

Another ground on which the petitioner has set up his claim was on the basis of instructions of the Government of India by Ext.P3 communication, directing the Indian Banks Association to extend the benefit of pension to employees who have completed 15 years of qualifying service and had availed VRS scheme. In turn, the Indian Banks Association by Ext. P4 had directed all the public sector banks to make necessary amendments to regulation 28. Contention of the petitioner was that, in the light of the above, he was entitled for the pension. I am not inclined to accept this contention, since Bank has not modified or amended its regulations limiting the qualifying service to 15 years. Hence, benefit on that ground is also not available.

¶41

The last ground, which appears to be more sustainable, is on the basis of the bipartite settlement entered into between the two unions and the management, as Ext.P7. There is no dispute that by Ext.P7, it was extended to employees similarly situated as that of the petitioner. Such employees had moved this court and by Ext.P8 judgment , it was held that the condition that imposed minimum qualifying service of 20 years in clause 1(a)(v) was against the above bipartite settlement and hence was quashed . Consequently, it was declared that the petitioners therein were entitled to pension under Ext.P7 bipartite settlement. This was confirmed in

¶42

WPC No.12733/2021

¶43

¶44

Ext.P9 judgment by the Division Bench. Hence, the eligibility of petitioners and similarly situated persons to claim benefit, is confirmed.

¶45

However, though on facts, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of bipartite settlement and Exts.P8 and P9 judgments, the obstacle that stands in the way of the petitioner is Ext.P10 judgment. The petitioner had moved this court in W.P.(C) 19093/2006 on the single premise that he had completed 20 years of qualifying service and Regulation 17 of the Pension Regulation was ultra vires. This was rejected by the court. It has become final, in the absence of any challenge.

¶46

Perusal of Ext.P10 shows that, the only ground on which the petitioner claimed pension was that, he had attained minimum qualifying service and even assuming that he had completed only 18 years and 9 months service, Regulation 17, in so far as it fixed the period of qualifying service as 20 years, was ultra vires. Both the contentions were repelled by Ext.P10, which has become final. No doubt, in that writ petition the petitioner had not taken up a ground that he was entitled to pension by virtue of Ext.P7 bipartite settlement and also in the light of Exts.P8 and P9 judgments. Absolutely, no such averments was made in the writ petition nor any argument advanced on it. It seems that the petitioner was totally ignorant about the bipartite settlement as well as the proceedings initiated by similarly situated persons which ended in Exts.P8 and P9.

¶47

It is pertinent to note that, even though the petitioner was absolutely negligent and the counsel appearing for him never advanced an

¶48

WPC No.12733/2021

¶49

¶50

argument based on Ext.P7, the bank also neither brought it to the notice of the court at the time of disposal by Ext.P10. Exts.P8 and P9 judgments were rendered in the year 2014. Though the writ petition leading to Ext.P10 was filed much earlier, Ext.P10 judgment was rendered on 24/3/2015, much after Exts.P8 and P9. Necessarily,the bank had an obligation to bring it to the notice of the court . The bipartite settlement which was applicable to parties and the binding precedents laid down by this court in the earlier judgments in Ext.P8 by a learned Single Judge and confirmed by Ext.P9 by the Division Bench of this Court was not brought to the notice of this court. Hence, I am inclined to hold that Ext.P10, which was rendered without noticing the binding precedent in Ext.P9, will not bar the petitioner from claiming such right now. Since the petitioner did not raise a claim on the basis of Ext.P7, nor had voluntarily and knowingly abandoned such a claim in the earlier proceeding, it will neither estopp the petitioner from raising such a claim nor bar him from raising such a contention in a subsequent proceedings. Having considered this, I am not inclined to accept Ext.P10 as a bar in the petitioner setting up a claim on the basis of Ext.P7 in the present writ petition.

¶51

In the above circumstances, I am convinced that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Ext.P7 bipartite settlement in the light of Exts.P8 and P9 judgments. It is so declared.

¶52

In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of the pension in the light of Ext.P7

¶53

WPC No.12733/2021

¶54

¶55

settlement. Accordingly, the respondents shall calculate the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner from the date of retirement in the light of Exts.P8 and P9 and shall pay him the amounts due accordingly. Steps shall be taken to issue him revised pension pay order. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

Judge

dpk

WPC No.12733/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12733/2021

¶63

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶64

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PENSION
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-09-2001 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED DATED 5-09- 2000
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11-12-2000 ISSUED BY INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1-07-2002 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN W.P(C) NO. 19093/2006 WITHOUT EXHIBITS
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION AND THE WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY DIFFERENT UNIONS SIGNED ON 27-04-2010
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO. 26562/12 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 17-09-- 14 IN W.A NO. 937/14 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 24-03- 2015 IN W.P(C0 NO. 19093/2006
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26-3-2021 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT

T.K.Uthaman v. State Bank of India SBI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.Uthaman v. State Bank of India SBI

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

T.R. Komalan, Vs the Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board Office

Ramya V.N Vs State of Kerala

Vijayappan.C. Vs Biju Prabhakar IAS

Boban .a.G. Vs State of Kerala

Jilumon Scaria, Vs Kondazhy Grama Panchayath

Shaju M. Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies