Disposed

Mr. Surendran Nair.P.v v. the Assistant General Manager Syndicate Bank Amended as Canara Bank

Kerala HC24 May 2024WP(C)/344/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An ex-serviceman sought refixation of pay upon re-employment in a bank based on his last IAF pay. The Court observed that pay fixation under a Bipartite Settlement falls outside Article 226 and must be raised under the Industrial Disputes Act. The petition was disposed of, noting pay was already fixed per the settlement, while leaving the petitioner free to challenge the same in appropriate indust

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to raise dispute in industrial forum.

Mr. Surendran Nair.P.v Vs the Assistant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 344 OF 2018

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

MR. SURENDRAN NAIR.P.V
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O VISWANATHAN NAIR G,PRASANNA MANDIRAM
PUNNARCODE,PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O., KUMARAPURAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 565.

¶7

BY ADV DENNIS VARGHESE

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
SYNDICATE BANK PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT,
HEAD OFFICE,DOOR NO. 16/355 & 16/365A,
MANIPAL UDUPI DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA STATE-576 104.

¶10

** NAME AND ADDRESS AMENDED AS
CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE AT 112,
J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU- 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER
AS PER THE ORDER DTD 5.4.2024 IN IA 1/24

¶11

2THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER
SYNDICATE BANK, MARKET ROAD,
KANNANKULANGARA, TRIPUNITHURA
PIN-682 301.

¶12

** ADDRESS AMENDED AS

¶13

W.P.(C) No.344 of 2018

¶14

¶15

SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK,
TRIPUNITHURA BRANCH, HOSPITAL ROAD
TRIPUNITHURA, TRIPUNITHURA- 682301

¶16

AS PER THE ORDER DTD 5.4.2024 IN IA 1/24

¶17

SRI.R.S. KALKURA, SC.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C) No.344 of 2018

¶20

¶21

EASWARAN S. , J.

¶22

W.P.(C) No.344 of 2018

¶23

Dated this the 24th day of May 2024

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner herein is an Ex-serviceman from the Indian Air Force who was re-employed with the respondent, erstwhile Syndicate Bank as a Clerk with effect from 17.9.2013. He was discharged from the Airforce on 30.4.2001 and re-employed as a Clerk with erstwhile Syndicate Bank on 17.9.2013. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to a pay fixation at the rate fixed in the pay certificate at the time of discharge. In other words, the petitioner contends that he had last drawn pay at Rs.7,699/- which ought to have been taken by his employer while fixing his pay into the entry cadre as Clerk in the erstwhile Syndicate Bank. Later, the last drawn pay of the petitioner was revised as per Ext.P1 on 23.6.2015 notionally and the pay was increased to Rs.12,660/-. According to the petitioner, the respondents have not taken any steps to refix the pay in terms of the last drawn pay as evidenced from Ext.P1. Therefore, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

¶26

W.P.(C) No.344 of 2018

¶27

¶28

(i) To issue a mandamus or any other Writ, Order, or Direction directing the respondent Bank to re-fix the basic pay of the petitioner at an amount of Rs.16,060/- with effect from 17.09.2013 as per Exhibit P1 last pay Certificate in his Designation as a Clerk with the Respondent Bank, by declaring that, Exhibit P1 Last Pay Certificate issued by the Indian Air Force is legal and the petitioner is legally entitled to get his Basic Payment re-fixed at an amount of Rs.16,060/- with effect from 17.9.2013 as per Exhibit P1 last Pay Certificate.

¶29

(ii) To issue a mandamus or any other Writ, Order, or direction, directing the respondents to consider Exhibit P2(b) request/representation filed by the petitioner most expeditiously or within such time as may be fixed by this Honourable court.

¶30

The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is specifically stated that the pay fixed at the time of entry into service of the Bank was at Rs.8,000/- and therefore, there was no requirement to refix the pay in terms of the last drawn pay of the petitioner. In so far as the contention of the petitioner that a revision had taken place as per Ext.P1, it is contended that as soon as the revision took place, there was a

¶31

W.P.(C) No.344 of 2018

¶32

¶33

consequential refixation of pay in terms of the 10^th Bipartite Settlement entered on 25.5.2015. In terms of the said Bipartite Settlement, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.13,075/-. Therefore, it is the case of the respondents that there is no disparity in fixing the pay as contended by the petitioner.

¶34

I have heard Sri.Dennis Varghese the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. R.S. Kalkura, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank.

¶35

During the pendency of the writ petition, the Syndicate Bank was merged with Canara Bank and, accordingly, IA No.1 of 2024 was filed to substitute the respondent as Canara Bank which stood allowed by this Court on 05.4.2024.

¶36

I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the submissions based on the averments contained in the writ petition. According to Sri. Dennis Varghese, the petitioner’s pay was liable to be refixed at Rs.7,699/- at the time of entry into service and later, at Rs.16,060/- as per Ext.P1 Last Pay Certificate.

¶38

W.P.(C) No.344 of 2018

¶39

¶40

On the other hand, Sri. R.S. Kalkura, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent bank, based on the Bipartite Settlement, contended that the claim of the petitioner stood already redressed and therefore no further relief could be granted.

¶41

A reading of Ext.R2(e) shows that the Bipartite Settlement was entered on 26.6.2015 wherein, the pay in respect of Class IV employees was refixed in pursuance to the discussions with the registered trade unions. It is now settled law that any dispute qua the Bipartite Settlement cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The parties aggrieved by any clause under the Bipartite Settlement will have to necessarily invoke the remedy available under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act by raising an appropriate dispute under Section 12 of the Act.

¶42

Be that as it may, primafacie ,this Court finds that the claim of the petitioner to have the pay fixed at Rs.12,660/- based on Ext.P1 stood redressed in terms of the Entry No.3 to Annexure K in Exhibit R2(e ). If the petitioner has a case that the said fixation is not proper and he is entitled to more, it is necessarily up to him to raise appropriate disputes before the authorities constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶43

W.P.(C) No.344 of 2018

¶44

¶45

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of recording the statement in the counter affidavit that the pay of the petitioner has been fixed at Rs.13,075/- in terms of Ext.R2(e) Bipartite Settlement and leaving open the right of the petitioner to question the said fixation if it does not suit his requirement and if violates any other provisions of law in an appropriately constituted proceeding under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. No order as to costs.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

EASWARAN S., JUDGE

¶48

¶49

W.P.(C) No.344 of 2018

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 344/2018

¶52

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶53

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LAST PAY CERTIFICATE DATED` `23.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE INDIAN AIR FORCE TO THE` `PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 02.06.14 FILED BY`
	`THE PETITIONER, BEFORE THE RESPONDENT`BANK`SEEKING` `RE-FIXATION OF BASIC PAYMENT FROM AN AMOUNT OF` `RS. 8,000/-TO AN AMOUNT OF RS.16,060/-`
`EXHIBIT` `P2(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 03.06.14` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SHOWING SUBMISSION OF` `EXHIBIT P2 PETITION.`
`EXHIBIT` `P2(b)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION/REQUEST DATED` `20.09.2014 SEEKING RE-FIXATION OF BASIC PAYMENT` `FILED BY THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT` `P2(c)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15.09.15 SUBMITTED` `BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BANK.`
`EXHIBIT` `P2(d)` `RESPONDENT`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL OCTOBER 2015` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT` `BANK.` `EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT R2(a`	`) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.9.2013`
	`SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT` `R2(b)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPOINTMENT DATED` `4.9.2013`
`Exhibit` `R2(c)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE IBA CIR HR&IR CIR 2013-` `14/589/8764 DATED 30.1.2014`
`Exhibit`	`TRUE` `COY` `OF` `THE` `CIRCULAR` `BEARING`
`R2(d)`	`NO.PD.HRDD.0088.PAY EXSCR.1734 DATED 5.12.2016`
`Exhibit` `R2(e)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE 10`^TH`BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT DATED` `26.6.2015 AS PER CIRCULAR NO.260-2015-BS-PD-30-IRD`
`Exhibit` `R2(g)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 04/5/2014 ISSUED BY THE` `DIRECTORATE OF AV TO THE PETITIONER`

Mr. Surendran Nair.P.v v. the Assistant General Manager Syndicate Bank Amended as Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Surendran Nair.P.v v. the Assistant General Manager Syndicate Bank Amended as Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Unit Chief Vs M/S. Sapthazeal Private Limited

Alexander K. Thomas Vs District Collector, Kollam

Anjana S. Vs Secetary to Government

Eduayil Sassindra Vs Union of India

Ajayakumar Vs Anayadi Milk Producers Cooperative Society Ltdno. Q 120(D) Apcos

G. Bhagavat Singh Vs the Registrar General