Disposed

K. Mallikarjunan v. Uco Bank and 3 Others

Telangana HC13 Dec 2024WP/11269/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed by directing UCO Bank to reconsider petitioner's representation for compassionate allowance or pension option within two months. Court held dismissal order not automatically void but set aside rejection of compassionate allowance, allowing petitioner to repay PF contribution and seek pension.

What did the court decide?

Directed UCO Bank to reconsider representation for compassionate allowance or pension option within two months, subject to repayment of PF contribution with interest.

K. Mallikarjunan Vs Uco Bank and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^321s ]

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, IHE^{THIRTEENTHDAYOF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICET.MADHAVI DEVI}

¶7

WRIT PETITI^{ON NO:11269 0F 2020}

¶8

Between: K. Mallikarjunan,^{S/o: late J'R Krishna} ^)/lurthv^{aoed about87 years'} occ. Retired^{erprovEe,',HTo-c[i N;.-5, r"trtoiri,n"onini Apartments,_siri} colony,^{ruea r N e rear[Zi]x:ii;i;,n.(' p-""Mai n Road'secdnderabad-56'}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

UCO Bank,^{Rep' by its Chairman} .and.Managing^{Director' Head} -Office'^10' ' Etiiiol riiir"iG M;fi;'"j-s;iini (eraoourne" R6ad)' Kolkata-7oo 001'

¶12

The Executive^{Director, UCO Bank, Head Ojflqe, 10' Biplabi Trailokya} - i,i;i"r."t S;ilni(erauo,r.nt Road), Kolkata-70O 00't '

¶13

The General^{Manager, Personnel ServicirtDepartment' UCO Bank'3-4' DD}

¶14

eioit, Sector-1, sa'it Lake' Kolkata-7oo 064'

¶15

4 The Deoutv General^{Manager, UCO Bank' Zonal Office'8-2-624} '^Ground Floor, Roail No.10,^{Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-J4'}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under^{Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith'the High Courtmay be} pleasedtoissueanappropriateWrit,orderofDirection,particularlyoneinthe natureofWritofMandamus,declaringthattheorderofdismissalpassedbythe RespondentBankon26/06/lgg5withthecoveringletterinproceedings No.PER/ER/95/2699,^{dated 28t}Bl1gg5is ex{acie illegal in pursuanceof the} Judgment^{renderedby the Apexcourt, reportedin 2018 (14) scc page' 92 and} notreleasingtheBankscontributiontoprovidentfundimmediatelyandreleasing afterlapseofmorethanl4yearswhichhasresultedinnon-optingforpensionby thepetitionerwhichiscondonab]eandtherejectionisillegal,unjust,contraryto law,arbitraryandviolativeofArtic'les14and2loftheconstitutionoflndiaand

¶18

further declare that the petitioner is entifled for pension with effect from the date of applicabirity under the UCo Bank (Emproyees) pension Regurations 1gg5 and grant all consequential benefits.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶20

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 direct the Respondent Bank to treat the petitioner as a varid optee for pension and rerease the fu, pension as we, as the arrears from the effective date under the UCO Bank (Employees) pension Regulations .1995 forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ petition.

¶21

lA NO: 2 oF 2020

¶22

Petition under section 'r51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to receive the additional documents in the interest of justice and fair- play.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI A. K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: M/S M. SHALINI, SC FOR UCO BANK

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

TIIE HONOURABLE^{SMT WSTICET.MADHAVI DEVI}

¶27

w.P.NO.^{11.269 0F 2020}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

In this writ^{petition, the petitioner is seekinga writ of} mandamus declaring^{the order of dismissalfrom service passed} by the respondent^{bank on 26 06'1995 with covering letter in} proceedings No.PER/ER/9^{5l2699,dated28'08' 1995 as ex-facie} illegal in view^{of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the} case of UCO^{Bank and Others Vs' RajendraShalkar Shukla'} reported in 2018^{(14) SCCPage92 and not releasingthe balk's} contributiontoprovidentfundimmediately,butreleasingit after a lapse^{of more than 14 years,which has resultedin non-} opting for^{pension by the petitionerwhich is condonableand} rejection of the^{request as illegal, unjust' contrary to law'} arbitrary and^{unconstitutional and to further declare thatthe} petitioner is entitled^{for pension with effect from the date of} applicability under^{theUCO BankEmployees Pension} Regulations^{1995 and to grant all consequential benefits and to} pass such other^{order or ordersin the interest ofjustice'}

¶30

Brief facts^{leadingto the filing of the present writ} petition are that^{the petitioner joined the service of the}

¶31

¶32

TMD,J w.P.No. 11259 oJ 2O2O

¶33

respondent bank as Junior Officer Scale_I on 21.O3.195g and thereafter he was promoted as Officer Scale_II in the year 1970, as Senior Manager Scale-lll in the year 1976, as Chief Manager Scale-lV in April, 1985 and as Assistant General Manager Scale_ v in April 1987. The petitioner was about to retire from service on 3O.O6.1993, but the respondent bank issued a charge sheet on 29.06.1993, alleging certain irregularities and the service of the petitioner- was extended tili the completion of inquiry. The petitioner surbmitted his detailed explanation denying the charges leveling against him.

¶34

It is submitted that the petitioner has attained the age of superernnuation on 30.06. 1993, but his services were extended vide letter dated 29.06. 1993 without payment of arry salary, but thr: petitioner paid his contribution to the provident fund vide covering letter No.pER:pF:CLAIM:2264/93, dated 27.07.7993. It is submitted that though the respondent bank possessed inherent power to extend the service of the petitioner till the completion of enquiry, they have no power or authority to impose any punishment after attaining the age of superannuatiorr with retrospective effect.

¶35

¶36

TMD.J w.P.No. 11269 ol^2O2O

¶37

Learned counsel for^{the petitioner referredto} Regulation 2o(3)(ii0 of^{the respondentbank for this purpose' It} is submitted that the^{respondent bankhas passedthe order of} dismissal from service^{on 26.O6.L995. He placed reliance upon} the^judgment of the^{Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UCO} Bank and Others Vs.^{Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvadel,wherein} it was held that though^{the regulations provide for continuation} of departmental^{enquiryinstituted againstthe ofhcer employee} before his retirement^{even after his retirement, none of the} substantive penalties^{specifred inRegulation 4 of1979} Regulations, which^{include dismissalfrom service, can be} imposed on an officer^{employeeafter his retirementon attaining} the age of superalnuation.^{Thus, accordingto the learned} counsel for the^{petitioner, the order of dismissal oo 26'06'1995'} even though the^{petitioner has attained theage of} superannuation on^{30.06.1993, is ex-facie illegal and without} jurisdiction and contrar5r to the law^{laid downby the Apex} Court. Thus, according^{to the him, the said order is liable to be} set aside and the^{petitioner is entitled to pension from the date} of his attaining the^{age of superannuationunder the UCO Bank} (Employees') Pension^{Regulations of 1995 Notificationdated}

¶38

I 20ra (14) scc Page 92

¶39

¶40

TMD.J W.P.No. ,t259 oJ 2O2O

¶41

29.09.7995. It is submitted that the petitioner has therefore made representations to the authorities and on 04.O1.2016, the respondent bank modihed the order of dismissal from service to that of compulsorily retirement from service. It is submitted that the petitione:: could not opt for pension as the respondent balk did not release the amount payable to the petitioner by way of bank's contribution to the provident fund, which forms the source of pension payable and the same was released onlv in December. 20O9.

¶42

In view of the above, the petitioner had hied W.P.No.5399 of 2016 before this Court praying for full pension and this Cou rt has disposed of the writ petition vide orders dated,24.O9.20 19, directing the respondent bank to consider his representatio. and to pass orders thereon. It is submitted that the responderrt bank passed orders dated 13.12.2OLg rejecting the petitioner',s claim, on the ground that the petitioner was not a pension optee. l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent bank delayed in releasing its share of the provident fund as mentioned in letter dated, 13.12 .20 19 and therefore, the petitioner could not opt for pension and the delay in opting for pension is on account of delay in releasing the

¶43

¶44

TAl',J w.P.No- 17269 oJ 2o2o

¶45

provident fund and^{therefore,the order of rejection is ex-facie} illegal and invalid. The^{learned counselfor the petitioner} submitted that the^{petitioner is entitl'edto pension and that the} petitioner is willing either to^{repay the amount paid to him by} way of bank's contribution^{to the provident fund with due} interest or to authorize^{the respondents to deduct the provident} fund amount and^{interest due from the arrears of pensionand} to reiease full^{pension immediately'It is submitted that the} petitioner was^paid the^{gratuity amount only in February2O09} and thus, there^{was a delay in paymentof the gratuityamount} as well. Challenging^{the dismissal order and the consequential} modihed compulsorily^{retirementorder and alsorejection of the} petitioner's application^{for compassionate allowance vide letter} d.ated I3.72.2O19,^{the presentwrit petitionhasbeen filed'}

¶46

Learned counsel for^{the petitioner submittedthat} the petitioner^{has explainedthe reasons for delay in frling the} writ petition for^{claiming the pensionas attributableto the} change of^{versionsby the respondentsfrom dismissalto} compulsory^{retirement and also holding that the petitioner was} not an optee for^{pension vide proceedingsdated13 '12 '2019 '} According to the^{petitioner,non-payment of pensionisa}

¶47

.-:

¶48

¶49

TitD,J w.P.No. .!1269 of 2o2O

¶50

continuous \vrong and therefore the claim of pension is out of the purview of limitation for seeking legal remedy. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Tarsem Singhz, for the proposition that in case of continuous or successive wrongs, delay and latches or limitation will not thwart the claim so long as the claim, if allowed, does not have any adverse repercussions on the settled third party rights. He therefore submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed by him even after the Japse of fourteen years from the date of dismissal from service.

¶51

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, on the other hand relied upon the averments in the counter affidavit denying the contentions of the petitioner and seeking dismissal of the writ petition. It is submitted that after the petitioner attained the age of superalnuation as on 30.06. 1993, the respondent bank issued a cheque dated 27.O7.L993 releasing the petitioner's contribution to the provident fund and further, the bank's contribution to the provident fund was also settled with up-to_date interest on

¶52

2 2oo8 (8) SCC page 6{8

¶53

¶54

T'11'"1 W.P.Ito.^{, 1269of 2o2o}

¶55

oa.|2.2oogforanamountofRs.7,74,855.14l-.Itissubmitted that as per^{the UCO bank regulations' the services of the} petitioner^{were extendedfor continuationof the disciplinary} proceedings^{against the petitioner and it has culminated into an} order of^{dismissalfrom service vide orders dated 26'06'1995'It} is thus submitted^{that the petitioner was paid all terminal} benefrts^{i.e., even the bank's contribution to provident fund in} lieu of^{pension since the petitioner was a pension non-optee and} itwasthereafter,thatthepetitionersubmittedarepresentation dated 07.O7.2014^{for release of compassionate allowance from} the date^{of his superannuationi'e'' 30'O6' 1993 with alTears} and the^{bank has sent a reply vide letter dated 04'01'2016} the Petitioner^for PaYment^of rejecting^the request^of compassionate allowance since the Petitioner^has superannuated^{on 30'O61993' whereas as per bank service} regulations,^{compassionateallowalce'isapplicableto the} employees^{who are dismissedfrom service on or after the 1"t day} of November,^{1993' It is submitted that the petitioner has not} challenged^{the orderof rejection datedO4'O1'2016' but he is} challenging^{the proceedings of dismissalfrom serviceafter a} and therefore^{the writ} Petition long Period^{of twentY nine Years} is liable to^{be dismissed'}

¶56

¶57

TMD,J W.P.No 71269 ol2O2O -!

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a reply aflidavit rebutting the averments made by the responclent bank in their colrnter affidavit and submitted that the decision to release the bank,s contribution to the provident fund is based on the rules and regulations applicable to the petitioner, which inter alia provide that the employer,s contribution to provident fund is to be paid to an employee only on his normal retirement and that the bank,s contribution to provident fund was released to the petitioner upon completion of the enqurry proceedings and the gratuit5z was also paid on 23.O2.2OO9 only after finding the petitioner to be eligible for the same. It is submitted that the petitioner was informed about his compulsory retirement vide letter dated 04.Ol.2016 while rejecting his claim for compassionate allowalce and that the respondent bank had issued a circrrlar dated 27 .O4.2O 1 0 inviting applications from eligible staff members for exercising their option for pension in lieu of and blr refunding the bank,s contribution to provident fund, but the benefit of the scheme was denied to such of those officers and employees who were compulsorily retired, but many such employees who were denied the option for pension approached the Courts and obtained favourable orders for extension of pension benefits in lieu of provident fund. The

¶59

¶60

TND,J W.P.No- 11269 of 2o2O

¶61

petitioner quoted the case of one^{L.S.R.Murthy, who filed} W.P.No.7541 of 2O15 before this^{Court, which was disposed of} vide orders dated, 02.03.2O17^{directing the bank to pay pension} to Mr.L.S.R.Murthy,^{who was also retired compulsorily fromthe} bank and the order^was duly^{implementedby the respondent} bank. It is submitted that^{several writ petitions have been filed} in the High Courts throughout^{the Countryfor extending the} pensionar5r benefits to the employees^{who were compulsorily} retired by exercising the^{optionfor conversion of bank's} contribution of^{providentfundto pension and in view of the said} judgments, the Indian Banks Association^{issued jnstructionsfor} extension of^{pensionary beneltts to compulsorilyretired oflicers} and employees and^{based onthese instructions, the} management of UCO^{Bankissueda circular dated17'O5'2O18} extending the^{pensionar5rbenefits to all.sucheligible employees} and officers and^{accordingly, the petitionerhas submittedhis} letter dated 07.ll.2olo^{explainingthe reasons for his inability} to submit the^{pensionoption earlier and that the petitioneris} also agreeable to repaying^{the bank's contributionto the} provident fund along with^{interest. It is furthersubmitted that} though the^{petitioner was originallynamedas accused in the} criminal case,^{after investigation,it was found that he was not}

¶62

¶63

TMI',J w.P.No. 11259 oJ 2O2O

¶64

involved in the case and therefore, he was taken as a witness in the criminal case and it is on the basis of his evidence that the other ofhcers of the bank were convicted and the CBI had also issued a certificate confirming that the petitioner was a witness and not an accused in Case Nos.l of 1993 and 2 of 7993. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he was eligible for pension upon modification of the punishment of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement in view of the UCO Bank circular datecl 17.05.2018 or for compassionate allowance, if he were to be considered as dismissed from service.

¶65

L:arned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents have fiied their respective written arguments in support of their contentions

¶66

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, undisputed facts are that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.1993 and only one day prior to the said date, i.e., on 29.06.7993, a charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner and invoking the power under Regulation 2O(3) (iii) of UCO Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, the service of the petitioner was extencred till the completiorL of disciplinary proceedings. As per the said

¶67

¶68

TUD,J w.P.No. 11269 ol2O2O

¶69

Regulation, the petitioner's contribution^{to CPF was paid to him} on 27.O7.1993. The order of dismissal^{from service was parsed} ot 26.06.1995, i.e., after nearly^{two years of attaining the age of} superannuation. The^{learned counsel for the petitionerhad} relied upon the^judgment of^{the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in the} case of UCO Bank and^{Others Vs' RajendraShankar Shukla} (cited supral in support of his contention^{that such an order is} ex-facie illegal and arbitrary.^{However, this Court frnds that the} Hon'ble Apex Court in the^{case of ChairmancumManaging} Director, Mahanadi Coal^{Fields Limited Vs.Sri} Rabindranath Choubey3, in^{para 10'23 of its order, has} observed that the ratio of the^{above decisionwas not that} punishment of dismissal could not^{have been imposed after} superannuation, but the^{ratio was that due to inordinatedelay} in issuing the charge sheet^{and non-paymentof subsistence} allowance during the^{pendency of disciplinaryproceedingafter} attaining the age of superannuation,^{the order of Dismissal from} service cannot be sustained.^{Therefore,this argumentof the} petitioner is not acceptable and^{is accordingly rejected' The next} a-rgument of the^{petition€r is that due to modifrcation of the}

¶70

3 AIR 2o2o sc 2978

¶71

¶72

TMD,J W.P.No. ! 1269 of 2O2O

¶73

order of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement, the petitioner is eligible for pensionary benefits.

¶74

I 1 . This Court hnds that the order of compulsory retirement is neither frled along with the writ petition nor is challenged bJ, the petitioner. Even the respondents have not filed the copy- of the order of compulsory retirement and it is also not stated in the counter affidavit that the order of punishment cf dismissal from service has been modilled to the order of compulsory retirement. It is so stated only in the letter dated 04.O1.2016 rejecting the petitioner's request for payment of compassio:rate allowance on dismissal from service. The compassionatr: allowance is allowable to the employees rvho are dismissed or removed or terminated from services under Regulation 31 of UCO Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995. Therefore, in the absence of the order of compulsory retirement, it cannot be presumed that the order of dismissal from service has been modified by the respondent bank. Therefore, the order of dismissal from service alone shall be considered tc be existence. The ground of compulsory retirement seems to have been taken only to deny the claim of compassionate allowance to the petitioner. As stated in the

¶75

¶76

TIID,J w-P.No. 11269 of^2O2O

¶77

letter dated lg .12.2019,^{Regulation3 I of the UCO Bank} (Employee) Pension Regulation^{1995, stipulatesas under: -}

¶78

(i) An emplogee, utho is dismissed^{or remoued or terminated} from^{seruice,shall} forfeit^{his pension;}

¶79

(ii) Prouided that the outhoritg^{higher than the authoifu} competent to dismiss or^{remoueor tertninate his} from^seruice mag, if such dismissoJ,^{remoual, or tenninationi's on or after the} lst dag of Nouember,^{1993; and the case i-s deseruingof special} consideratinn, sanction^{a compassionate allouLancenot exceeding} tuto-third of the^{pen-sion uhich utould houe been admi'ssible ta} him on the bosis of the^{quatifuing seruicerendered up to the date} o/ his drbmiss al, remoual,^{or termination-}

¶80

The above regulation^{is applicable to the employees} who were dismissed.^{on or after llll/1993ln this case, though} the petitioner superannuated^{on 30.06.1993,the order of} dismissal was^{passed only w.e.f. 26.06.1995'Thereforethe said} regulation is applicable^{to the petitioner' However, the request} of the petitioner has^{been rejected on the ground that the} petitioner has not mentioned^{any reasons for deserving special} considerations^{for grantof compassionate allowance to him'}

¶81

This Court^{also observes that the petitionerhas} challenged the letter^{dated 04.01.2O16in W'P No 5399 of 2016'} which was disposed^{of on 24-09.2019permittingthe petitioner}

¶82

¶83

¶84

TNID,,, w.P.No. 1t269 ol 2O2O

¶85

to make ,l fresh representation seeking compassionate allowance ard accordingly the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 29.lO.2Olg seeking release of compassionate allowance. Therefore, the delay in seeking either compassionate allowance or pension cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Further, the bank has itself issued a circular dated 17.05.2018 lor payment of pensions to compulsorilv retired employees. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible for pension under the said circular, subject to the petitioner repaying the bank,s contribution 1_o the provident fund along with interest.

¶86

Though the order rejecting the ciaim of compassionate allowance has not been challenged in this writ petition, this r:ourt having held that the order of dismissar from service is in force, can mould the relief in the writ petition to the consequential relief of compassionate anowance. The facts mentioned above about the circumstances under which, the petitioner was prevented from exercising his options for pension within the prescribed period due to the order of dismissal from service and later rejection of the request for compassionate allowance on the ground of modification of punishment order to compulsory retirement, though there is no such order are arl the

¶87

¶88

'rND,t w.P.No, 71269 of 2O2o

¶89

¶90

compelling and deserving^{reasonsfor considerationof his case} for compassionate^{allowance. Therefore, this courtdeems it fit} and proper to set^{aside the order dated 13'12'2019 and direct} the Respondent^{No.2 to reconsider the representation of the} petitioner d.ated 29.10.2019^{for release ofcompassionate} allowance from the^{date of his superannuationin the light of} above observations of^{this Court. The respondent No'2 shall} pass the appropriate orders^{as directedabove withina period of} two months from the^{date of receiptof a copy of this order'} Alternatively, it^{is directedthat if the bank is able to locate the} order of compulsory^{retirement,then the petitionershould be} held to have been^{prevented by reasonable cause in exercising} the option for^{pensionwithin the stipulated period and should} be allowed to repay^{The Bankscontribution of PF with simple} interest as charged^{by the Bank and to apply for pension as per} the pension^{Regulations from the date of compulsory retirement} which is the date^{of attaining the age of superannuation'}

¶91

1 5. In either^{circumstances,the respondentbank is} directed to^{pass orders within a period of 2 months from the} date of receipt of^{the copy of this order'The petitioneralsoshall} be entitled to^{simple intereston the pension/compassionate}

¶92

¶93

TUD,J W.P.No. 11269 of 2O2O

¶94

allowance payable to him from the date of his entitrement tilr the

¶95

date of payrrrent.

¶96

16_ .Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There

¶97

shall be no order as to costs.

¶98