Dismissed

The Deputy Managing Director and Corporate Development Officer v. Chimata Sudhakar

Telangana HC6 Dec 2021WA/62/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed a retired bank employee's petition for salary revision under a 1995 Circular. The bank appealed on statute of limitations grounds. The High Court distinguished the limitation defense and held the later Circular governed entitlement over the earlier Joint Note, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Bank directed to implement Circular dated 26.07.1995 and grant benefits.

The Deputy Managing Director and Corporate… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OECEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE GHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 62 OF 2019

¶7

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against order dated 21-08-2018 Passed inW.P.No.23614ol 2002 onthefileof the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The Deputy Managing Director and Corporate Development Officer, State Bank of lndia, Corporate Centre, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai-40OO21 .

¶10

The Deputy General Manager,, State Bank of lndia, Pension Provident Fund and Gratuity Department, Corporate Centre, P.B. No. 12, Mumbai-400021

¶11

The Assistant General Manager, Pension Provident Fund and Gratuity Department, State Bank of lndia, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Kothi, Hyderabad - 500095.

¶12

...Appellants/Respondents

¶13

AND

¶14

Chimata Sudhakar, S/o. late Laxmipathi, Aged 60 yrs, Occ. Retd. Dy. Manager, State Bank of lndia, Rajam Branch, Rlo.1-75-17 (MlG-2) Plot No. 3/3, Dharmasakthi Nagar, MVP, Colony, Vishakhapatnam - 5300'17.

¶15

... Res pondenUWrit Petitioner

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the operation of the order daled 21-08-2018^passed by the Hon'ble Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23614 ol 2002^pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal.

¶18

Counsel for the Appellants: Dr. Y. PADMAVATHI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI S. AJAY KUMAR

¶20

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLI THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶23

AND

¶24

TH I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶25

WRIT APPEAL No.62 of 2Ol9

¶26

JUDGMENT: t r tlp I[ot l)Ic l,hp^{(]/rie-/,/r,sircp} .:rrrsl,⁽ hon,lr(1 .S/rdi/r a/

¶27

The pre lent appeal is arising out of an order dated 1n 21.O8.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge W.P.No.236l I ol 2OO2.

¶28

The fac ts of the case reveal that the respondent before this )ourt, a retired bank empioyee, carne up before this⁽ ourt stating that his pension and terminal dues are nor being revised keeping in vien, the Circular issued by th,r State Bank of Irrdia dated 26.07.1995. The Iearned Singte Judge, placing reliance upon the Circuiar daled 26.07 1995, has allowed the writ petition. The relevalt porr ion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is rep'oduced as under:-

¶29

"ll is submitted by the peritioner that while l-rc was working as Deputy Manager at State Bank of India, R rjam Branch, Srikakulam, he had applied for voluntar y retirement and accordingly he was allowed to retire and he was paid service benefits. It is further submitt, d by the petitioner that subsequent to his retirem€'nt, the Officers' Association of the Banks and Managernents of various banks have entered into an agreemcnt in the year 1995 for revision of salary and other e noluments. It is further submitted by the^/ petition,'r that as per Point No.3(v) of Circular No.l)trR tR.9/95-96, dated 26.7.1995, he is entitled lor

¶30

revision of salary. Point No.3 (v) of the said circular reads thus:

¶31

"the officers u,ho had retired or haci been dismissed are ceased to be in the Bank service after 01. I 1 . I 992 maY be paid arrears on account of salary revision from 01.\1.1992 till the date of their retirement/ dismissal cessation of service."

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of submitting number of representation s, the respondents are not implementing the orders issued in Circular dated 26.7.1995. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶33

Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that as per the Joint Note dated 23.6.1995, the Indian Banks Association High Power Committee after discussions with the All India Officers' Organization agreed for revised norms which would come into effect with effect lrom May, 1993 and since the petitioner retired from service prior to May, 1993, he is not entitled for the said benefits.

¶34

This Court having considercd the submissions made by the parties is of the considered view that the circular dated 26.7.1995 which rvas issued after the Joint Note dated 23.6.1995 makes it abundantly clear that the persons who retired after l. Ll.1992 are entitled for revision of salary. Since the petitioner retired frorn service after 1.11.1992, he is entitled for the benefits as claimed by him in terms of Point No.3(v) of circular dated 26.7 ,1995.

¶35

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of revision of salary and recalculate pensionary benefits to the petitioner in accordance with circular dated 26.7 .1995. No order as to costs.

¶36

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed."

¶37

Learr ed counsel appearing for the appellar-rts/Bank has veher:rently argued before this Court that the writ petition s; rould not have been allor,r,ed by the learned Single Jucge as it was prelerred after ten years

¶38

In th: considered opinion of this Court, payment of iess pensi rn and payment of less salary is a recurring cause of action and therefore, keeping in view the judgment lelivered in M.R.Gupta v. Union of India and othersl tl e question of allowi.ng the writ appeal on the aforesaid 5 round does not arise.

¶39

The rndisputed facts make it very clear that the State Bar Lk of India has issued the Circular on 26.07.199 i, which is on record. The benefit u,as to be given to .he officers who have attained the age of superannr ation after Ol.lI.1992. Paragraph 3(v) of the Circular is reproduced as under:-

¶40

"(u) ffficers who had retired or had been dismissed or cea red to be in the Bank's service after 1 . 1 1 . 1992 may b: paid arrears on account of salary revision lrom l.lI.1)92 till the date of their retirement /dism^{ssal/cessationof service.} However, in respect of such c fficers, who were under pecuniary obligation to the Bank at the time of retirement /^{dism: ssal/cessationpayment} of arrears on account of salary revision should be made after obtaining appror al from the Controlling Authority concerned. The Pl contributions of the officer payable on account

¶41

'^{AIRr996 SC66, :(t995) 5 SCC} 628

¶42

of arrears, and also Bank's contribution payable thereon should be remitted to Local Head Office/Central Account Office, Calcutta in the usual manner. Refund may be made to the officer alter completing the usual formalities including obtaining sanction from the Trustees. "

¶43

The aforesaid Circular certainly makes the respondent entitled for revision in salary. The Circuiar further clarifies along with the charts, the procedure for revision in pay/pension. The same has not been done in the case of the respondent.

¶44

Learned counsel for the appellants has a-lso drawn the attention ol this Court towards some Discussion Note (Joint Note), which is also on record and her contention is that as per the Joint Note, the respondent is not entitled for revision in pay/pension.

¶45

In the considered opinion of this Court, the Circular was issued only after issualce of the Joint Note. The Joint Note contains the deliberations between the employees and the management and based upon the deliberations, the Circular was issued. Therefore, the Circular has to be followed.

¶46

Hence, the present writ appeal is dismissed and the Bank is directed to implement the Circular and to^grant the benefits, if any, as per the Circular dated 26.07.1995 and its Annexures, which are part of the Circular.

¶47

The mi,;cellaneous applications pending in this u,rit appeal, if a ty, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to c fsts.

¶48

SD/.C.V.MALLIKARJ UNA VARMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' Irt--/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Dr Y.^oadmavathi, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri S. \jay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Co pies 4. One Spare copy CHR' MMA

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611212C21

JUDGMENT

W.A.No.62 ol2tt19

:1riE G I.ait
l<br>o
-:)
rJO 1i L:c?8ul
;,
\t:'

¶54

DISMISSING T}IE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

)
Y

The Deputy Managing Director and Corporate Development Officer v. Chimata Sudhakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Managing Director and Corporate Development Officer v. Chimata Sudhakar

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

Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd., Re.by its Chairman and M.D. Vs D.B. Papa Raju

Uppala Santhosh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Al-Hashmi Wakf Properties Protection Cell, Hyd Vs B. Janardhan Reddy, Hyd

K.Eshwaraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Adimulapu. Raja Vikram Vs The Chief Secretary

M/s. Woama Electronics Vs Saitronix Electro Drives Private Limited