WA.2 1 32 / 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12'?" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.J.S.KHEHAR, CHIEF
THE HONBLE
W.A.No.21£;:2:vi2po6A'ts 3;
BETWEEN:
State Bank of ,
A body constit:1"t¢d~--m*1d'€:1<:thé=.,_ ' »
State Bank Cf I1-i_dia (Si1bsid.iary"Ban'};s]'
Act, 1959,...rep-;=esem;e.d by its '
Managing Difesétor, --
New Chief Managef-.{Pers'01}11'e1) '
Sn' Jagac1ssh--s.Pa:i1;
Head 0fficé,._Kt.G.Road, ~
Banga.1Qre--56O _00~9..:-- APPELLANT
'3 V' (By Na;asi1tiha11;'Adv.)
Ageciabtrjut years,
_ q_.S/0 Koialfisubbarao,
V V V.?0rking' as Senior Assistant
_ at State Bank of Mysore,
A . :3IB»--Department, Bangaiore
Branch, Avenue Road,
A ..Banga1ore--56O 002. RESPONDENT
A (By Sri Ajit Kakyan for M/s. Law Mansion]
WA.2 132 /2006
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karr1’ataka
High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passedg”in’-the
Writ Petition No.43139/2001 dated 4.11.2008 and et.c_:_.g’ . ‘ A. V
This Appeal coming on for Final Disposal
B.S.Patil. J., delivered the following:
JUDGMEN’:£?__
1. Appellant–Bank is challenging the ‘dated-if
04.11.2006 passed by the .1earned.mSinglea pgJu.dg”e.’__ByEthe order
under challenge, the writ 1-gspondent herein
is allowed. A direction is” to accept the
application the writ petitioner
and to benefits from the date of
such > 1
2. The as a Senior Assistant under
_v the appeliant–Ba’1’lk_V_.VV SA Scheme called State Bank of Mysore
‘ff<etire_rnent Scheme was introduced on 27.01.2001
of voluntary retirement to the employees of
the Bank on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. One
the conditions of the Scheme contained in Clause 10[j) was
increspect of employees who were Office bearers / Directors
'of/the State Bank of Mysore Employees Housing Co–operative
ty Limited/State Bank of Mysore Co–operative Credit
WA.2 132/2006
3
Society/ State Bank of Mysore Consumer Co–operative Socieqr,
the acceptance of their application for voluntary retirement
shall be subject to producing No Objection/No Due Certificate
from the respective organisation. According to the._”ap_’p.ell–ant–
Bank, as the respondent was a Director of fer
Mysore Employees Housing Co–operative_ Soc_i’ety”‘_and_als” » up
he was not issued with No Due/No :’Obje_’c’tion’tiCe’r1ificai.§5..ypyithe
said Society as on the last datefixedllforll filingitheapplicationC’
for voluntary retirement, he was___not:eligible.”to– the benefit.
3. The appe1lant~bank a communication
dated respondent stating that the No
Objection the Honorary Secretary could
not be. accepted as..the’v.same was required to be signed by the
orzany” o”tl*1’er person authorised by the Board of
thelS*ociety. This communication was challenged in
WlP,,.l§Io.9VO5§”§}{T2il)01. The said writ petition was dismissed. Writ
Cx_Appea1*~l§lo;..1776/2001 filed against the said order, wherein the
of Clause 100) of the Scheme was also challenged came
tolgbe disposed of on 06.08.2001 directing the appellant bank to
pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the
respondents within a stipulated time. It is necessary to refer to
WA.2 132 /2006
4
the said order passed by the Division Bench which is produced
at Annexure–E2. The Division bench while referring to the
representation dated 10.06.2001 submitted by the respondent
to the Bank stating that he had resigned from the post .iof.l_O–ffice
bearer/Director of the Society and hence there
consideration of his application without gNoV_
Due/No Objection Certificate, has h_e1d_fin:Vparagraph?-l3,_,Qf”ithe
said order that from the wordinggof the. Rule it:uwas«–..Clear
only at the stage of acceptance”-of’ the application filed for
voluntary retirement the’–«.1z\i’o_l3lue,gf’Objection Certificate Was
to be produced. lt,_has been:._fu.rtlier,ppointedlout that a rational
interpretation necessarily indicate that if in
the rneanwhilet had ceased to be an Office bearer,
then,,._%;thei’~ requirerrientpiof producing No Due/No Objection
(A’.ert.ifi<:a_te:.wovu–ld_ not arise, nor would there be any bar to the
point of time of the application for Voluntary
V _ retire;me1*1t.as"llit was at the stage of acceptance alone that the
0 .rparticular "certificate was required to be produced. In the light
-_of._the°above observations, the Division Bench found that it was
unnecessary to consider the validity of the Rule which was
” challenged before it and disposed of the appeal in terms stated
ein.
WA2132/2006
5
4. This order passed by the Division Bench has attained
finality. It is thereafter that the appe11ant–bank claims to have
got certain clarification from the Society to the effect that the
resignation submitted by the respondent on 19.03.2jO£l:”i”–.VVthe
post of Director and to the post of Honorary
accepted. Based on such clarifi_cation ffroin the . pg
Society, the appellant–bank passed the
rejecting the request made by’~the respondent.’ fQ;….yol’untai*yf’
retirement. _ K _ V
5. The said order dated questioned by the
responclventffbefore Judge in the writ petition.
The sarne has been A:.fja1loiwe’d«.directing the bank to accept the
application filed_fby..the’respondent seeking voluntary retirement
‘ V’ to’ gra.nt’vr–consec«;iien’tiaI terminal benefits. This order is now
cfialglellgiedgjinfth:is:..Appea1.
69 A “-.lLearn”e;d counsel for the appellant contends that the order
-V passed. the learned Single Judge is unsustainable as the
if dtproductioln of No Due Certificate by the respondent was a
mandatory requirement and mere submission of resignation
“Without its acceptance by the Society of which he was a
if Director could not have the effect of terminating his position as
s
WA.2l32/2008
6
a Director in the Society. According to him, as the resignation
submitted had been rejected by the Board of Directors of the
Society, the respondent was required to produce the_.l\_lo Due
Certificate. –_
7. Learned Counsel for the respondent has SJ’E:1’°O1],:0;lv;’)7._._l:’t3:.fl1J[C(i
the contentions urged placing reliance on the..findings:’1’ecord’cd
and the reasons assigned by the leaicnedsiiagle ll,
8. Having carefully considered theV’con’tentio’n’sj_urgedjlbyihe:
learned counsel for the parties on of the materials
on record, We find that._,_t’n.e a’ppelAlVan.tuhas not made out any
valid and jiistifiable interfere with the order passed
by the learned Singlea The order passed by the Division
Benc},§igon~O6.0é§.’2,fl):Cl_l attained finality. As adverted to by
1.18:*ElDUVC.’A.fi’l.f;;A”DiViSlOI1 Bench has found after interpreting the
iR1.1le–._that:ltj:e requirement of producing the No Due Certificate
V _ would arise only at the stage of acceptance of the application for
yoliintary’ ‘retirement and as the respondent– employee had
‘ceased to be an Office bearer as on the date the application was
-retlguired to be accepted, production of No Due Certificate did
” not arise and therefore, there was no bar for acceptance of the
Zpplication for Voluntary retirement. In the light of the clear
WA.2i32/2006
observations and directions issued in the order passed by the
Division Bench and in the absence of the bank placing any
material before the Division Bench showing that the resignation
submitted by the respondeni:–empioyee had been*’*i’ej_ec_t_ed,;:Vthe
appe11ant–bank. cannot be permitted to $_uch
contention now. The Bank was not justified in into 3
any correspondence with the Societyafter suffering an orderfbyp
the Division Bench on O6.08.20C)’i<1:"i.
9. Moreover. the learned Single’-Judge has rightly? referred to
the effect of Section V of 2{_'[}i¢é”v«_Ka’ri3.ataka Co-operative
Societies Act. .aeXtraeti11g the same and holding that a
member may resign_ his “membership in writing under his hand
anddieivivered to Chief Executive, whereupon his seat shall
on the expiry of 15 days from the date of such
f’deIi{r_¢p;yv”‘einlessfvsrithdrawn eariier. As rightly heid by the
V . learned Judge, there was nothing to show that the
{resignation submitted by the respondent–emp1oyee was rejected
f and’ the same was communicated to the writ petitioner.
‘”8”.f In the Eight of the judgment rendered by the Division
is Bgnch referred to herein above and the provisions contained
WA.2 132 /2006
8
under Section 29-B of the Karnataka Co–operative Societies Act,
1959, we find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge
does not call for interference. Hence, the writ appeal being
devoid of merits is dismissed.
it iChé;te£ii 3 was Index: yesi/noAV.'j.x M