IN THE HIGH comm' 012 KARNATAKA
DATED THIS THE 17*" DAYQF 40C_TOBi%l7R. 26-33; % A
BEFORE-_ = A L
THE HON'BLE MR. ms9i':§;E.ANAND mummy % %
wan' PETITIQN N;s.g$(,10F godscsam
BETWEEN:
V. Durai Sing}:-, %
S/0 R. Vijaya\.'=m_gi1 --;'_ 'V _:
Wurking. as " ,,
Cashier. hflndia-. . .
Je¢:vanbhim&nagari B.{:Vmpfi=.___* ' '
Bangalcug Now';*=3_t1'zad oi:--- " "
VRS and Resicfing :5; N3.
Haai<.ah1~Ji2ayana,2o**' I Cmss
" '~ _ ._SAfi'v__ekanagas*--Past
Vfiangalfism.-5£30._O47 PETITIONER
(33%. Mame)
'A x V' ~ ijnicm oflndia
_ 'Pfipresented by its
'T Department :2:-ffiaaking
Ministry of Finance
New Delhi
E ' ..... ..
2
2. The ChicI'Gcneral Manager
State Bank of India
Local Head Ofiicse
No. 65, St. Marks Road
Ba1:gal0m~560 001
3. The Chairman
State Bank of India
Cenlrai Olliw
Mumbai
4. The Indian Banks' u % L %
' Represented by its -- . %
Stadimza. House, 6"' Flop_r ' jw 1' _
Black No. ~ "
RESPONDENTS
(By and Ammd, Advocates for
Respondent3._Nos.2._ '3_,"Sh§'i. D. L. N. Rate for Respondent No. 4,
Ska} 'T. _Ra}az'at;Vi," }'.eamed Cmmsel appearing first Respondent
ittilil
% Fm;ig%w:§;?emim is Law uadct Articles 226 and 227 oflhe
Cca;slit1Itiot1"3--§sf India praying to quad: vide Annexurs Q dated
29.l2.2()0l by Rwptmdent No. 2 in denying the pensiunary
' the petitioner, as the same is iflegal and vioiative of
' ..A¥'I1'i'€}}e3 14, I6, 21 and 300A ofthe Cmrusiimtion oflndia.
' M This Writ Pefilitm coming on for Haring this day, the
V% '~ made the following: --
ORDER
Heard Ike; Counsusi for the pefifiiiihéf’ and um
2. The iiwls as are mie€a§{;’i..fpr the
are as I’ol}ows:- A .
The petitioner is pespondezzt-Bank.
The petitioner VV;<':spc)1adcnl–Ba!Ik on
2.3.1973, A fire cadre of Messenger at
its were slated to have been
tcrminagfiti i'nwMaV;)'; the pctitiuzwr had made
wpzesczxialioffs '1t%i:1si=al<;menL lhey were not stmsidcred. But
. lo judgment of the Supreme Court usndemd
ms; Tggrzmsa vs. N. Swadarmrxmey 19% LL} 473,
H VV .V whcfeig hcid that the rczirenchmcnl was bad and the said
having been applied to the pciitioncfs case, the
was reinstated and absorbed into the Banks services
. V x posted as 3 Messenger.
3. It is the pelitiuncr’s case that the
mm: lhe mind from the date of aemina:iun a#:d ¢u,.=.;&.1..:
appointment as a continuous servit:d;»and.,h6jj.\¥w_1s
fer the period 16.1.1976 to 3:.:.19g4,m,g
his temporary service in ‘the “(if of the
Supreme Court. The calculated and
paid from the y’c§trV__l97f3’.”‘ for eight
ycars from to the petitioner. The
the Bank by the petitioner
in {he l’9§4 date of appointment as 1.1.1976.
posted on promotion as Record-keeper
‘-1.3.1993. While he was so discharging his dutias,
sis Circular dated 29.122000, inlmduced a scheme
‘availed ‘Slate Bank of India — Vohmlaty Retirement Schcme’.
éaiatitiuntsr had appiicd under the Schema in {he expectation
hi: would receive ail benefits ixseiuding pension to which he
was cniilled. The. peiitiurncrk applicaiiun having been scruljnitgcd,
Z
penxionablc service, he was not eniilltxi It) the
background that the presenlpetitiun p« V S A
4. The Counsel for A. ‘Vlhc’
petitioner has been deprived urzfigbasig agngfigs he
rendered more than 25′ as per
the Banks deprived of this
benefit for f. wuuld reiterate
that of back wages, the
several Abanififils’ conferred on him was wilh
ref:;r§:nc«:t.lo sfiwice from 1976 to 1984 as uunlinuous
4vii:.::’Ba11l¢. The respomient-Bank, however, held that
for pensiunary benefits is, therefore, ccnlrasy
loi14.§§ey.\r}”:;i1V1’é¢.L)rd.
‘ * 4_ ziccording to the puiiliuncar, as per the existing Pension
-‘ of the Bank, an employee who has wmplewd 20 years of
u w’;$cnsitmablc service, as on lhc dale of his retirement, is ciigiblts for
pension. Thcmfmc, the action of £116 m:spt_>ndc:m-Batik is whoily
8′
7
illegal and has denied the just benefit due to [he The
Counsel would take this Court through the hi
substantiate his contentions in this mgaid,’
5. The respondents having
slatomtznl of objections lo
The Counsel for the _ ~:-suhiiiil that the
petitioner had joined –.i-cspomlenls, as it
in May to—ins£atud and absorbed as a
in ifho. Bank and posted as a Messenger. The
dam of termination and the dam of pianzmzwnl
treated as a continuous sorvicc and he was
paid the back wages and other benefits in terms of
iiiiiiv.Iif’»’1ii¢”4:3irciinlar of the Bank am; 24.11.1977. The benefits
aiitnissible. lo the employees who seek voluntary meiirement has
i hm stipulated in the Circular dated 29.12.2000 and these benefits
are admissibic subject to the eligibility norms pmzsmiibed under the
3
Rules and Rcgulaliuns. Clause 6(6) of the Sciwmes
provides that admissibility of bciwfit regarding be
in accordance with the Stale Bank of India
Fund Rule 1955, in force as on m!e;i.rai1£.iidu[e.
prescribe 3,. minimum qualifying*s:;rvicc{0fc%n£ii!§:i1i§:§3l_H1g).$J6nsiq)[:’
as 20 ywrs. The qualifying is to be
mkunod from the daleiiu — – czfipiuyee on a
pcnnanenl bas.is.j”‘ It the petitioner has
joinedigg A me under of appointment dated
1.3.1934 pni abaiion initially for a period of six
mcguihsi wi1ich_.,_____l;1is services came to be confirmed, as a
nisemnggr, i,Vit”1:il::i:ii”.u2.l935. The conlrflyulion towards Perrsitm and
comneuwd from 1.2.1985 when 1116 petitioner
auqui1i;xl”_iipennanenl siafius in the Bank, which is the reievanl date
Vinita .bitj’;.£t:t.:i§0B6d for the confermenl ufbeneliis under the State Bank
India Emfiloyems’ Ptmsiun Fund Rules. It is, lherciiarc,
V contended that, the petitioner is no! entitled to seek pension as he
hues nut pin; in that minimum qualifying scrvict; vi” 20 ymrs as
3
9
pa’escribed under the Rules. Consequently, the endorsement dated
29.12.2001, which is challeeged herein is in aeeurdanee jaw.
The mere [bet that the petitioner had worked
empioyee between 1973-74 and
pursuant to the judgment in N.
reckoned for purposes oI’Pen:§éV:)v:1i’-gr
Rules do not provide fey takjgxg~- tints: ednsidemtion.
During that period, the petidiigsnerfiiafs employee
and a end he was in-eligibie for being
cevered Rules. In fact, the Counsel for the
atteeiiurn to the very judgment of the
N. S ‘s case tu highlight the
{teat the employees to be reinstated pursuant to the
j;1dgme!;_t’3’weu1d not get all the benefits that they eeuid pussibiy
_ A’ -.cia.§m; which is extracted in statement ofubjeetitms as under:–
“I 1.
. …But that did not iiappgn
years have passezi and to 3
service renderai. Ever: sc§;’w§ard case3._V<:dr:é¥otiV}}:g.wiV:é
bad law. Re«irista£efnent ' .tt&.«'€_&'Sdr)t i'efief'
follows. At wiuzrgmiiei? 7.-Tn aga.-3 gems and
cirowmstancgs 0ftht.$..¢fc§'.$'t3,V be put
back wme avg: §2:.{t-'his. .s~iz§Ié}y will be what
he gq 'ifeijggxitnted in the same
ifany, flowing
jtii-¢;~ru_ .§é)'*'\»*.:;e_:re_éVi_'::Via.wilZ. t3é__'r§:nfi:ec¥ below ail perms.-neat
empme :5 tfiiigift. will be deemed to be 0
temgtérvtiyv nip He will not be allowed to
J élaim an)? in the flmatter of seniority or
j)i’ifg:rit): se among temporary employee on
that his retrenchment is being declared
V ‘j£;§=:’thi’s Court. Not that we are laying down my
_gét!¢§!E1l:p?f¢)[X)Sl’fi0n oflaw, but make this direction in
.. , the-* Epecial circumstances af the case. As fiar the
” = . _ :”.Respor2dent’s emoiuments, he wit! have to pursue other
remedies, ijfarty”.
It is, lhewfore, in artist that the maxim; aim being rcinstated
was not «July pmvidesd back wages, but, all other benefits like
3′
11
leave etc, But, however, it did not provide for rwkuning the
period prior 10 1.2.1985 as saerviw to be taken into acgzaitintiigr the
purpose of pension and maneuver, miiisiatemtsiit
original post that they were holding a;t~th¢:4tim:3Htit’ £1 .
temporary employae. It is only lliifi i
t.>{Ter of appointment that pcnnii plaice’
the petitioner was fr1irii”‘l £21985. It is,
therefore, emphasized not eligible for
pcnsiofii réiiiiif (iuuld not bc granted.
By Counsel for the petitioner would
seektn, pladé ‘miiiansfix ‘following judgment:
i -51′ ” ~ Vs. State offfarnataka and Others’,
‘ 2Ei{I3’j1C C3. 722
X Judge of this Court has held that in respect of me
‘ » }working as a Head-Maastcr of an educational institution,
having arisen in dispute between the petitioner iand the
it “”managcment, which culminated in a wmpmmisc petition befon:
3
I3
pcnsiunary buncfits. The Counsel for the pcmim.~..{r to
rely an this judgtnent in support ofhisttéasa Q_ AV
seen, the same, un facts, could, not
on hand.
.. Gammon India Limitéiit t _
(1984) J Supreme C(xgg1_(.’Ta,ses’_,5£lf2 ” 1, —
The of his case that wntinuity V into account for all
pu1poss~g insfifitiing, the __c-5.’ pension.
_ .7. tanxiuus mmsidcration to the facts and
having closely perused the sevcm}
nsfcrred to by the parties, it is plain that the
pcfaisionetry would be provided only in terms of the State
‘ H H ‘T tztfittdia Employees Pension Fund Rates and as pointud out
t Counsel for lhfl respondent, the petitioner does not qualify
T “VIE? the grant of stwh pensiunary benefits. Having regard, to the
fact that his services have been confirmed as a pennamsnt
2
14
empioyee only with effect from the year 1984
vehement eontention that his to V
the year 1976, for all purposes,’ inctedhiiig the of
cannot be accepted. In the the govern the
pension payable, it iespondent has
committed any the claim for
pension of the the petitioner may
avail is the said Rules. According
to the — amount that had seemed in
favour of duly paid to him and therefore,
A_ there Vcase””u2asie.«cut for consideration. This contention
Lwiiuid accepted and there is no substance in the present
pause.
i it it it ” * as the judgments relied upon by the Counsel for the
are concerned, the first of the judgments wouid turn on
‘ {Acts of thatease and cannot be applied to the present case on
hand, in the face of the State Bank of India Emptoyees Pension
5
Fund Rules, 1955, which governs
judgment :3!’ the Supreme Court, I§T1u£
cxmlimtity of service must be Viszkttsn ifiisg a<:coun£'
cannot also be applied and the fhasévfggiven emu:
to the wniinuous all purposes, whurc iiis Pfinnissiblc. V in the-. under the Slate Bank
cxmlinue;i’3g1ch “be held to’ be contrary to {he law
laid éourt Actmrtiilgly. lhun: is no merit
in and lhc same isdsnaissud
Sd/-
Judge