IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 24*" DAY OF AUGUST, 2010, BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. vENuGOPALA, GOw:OAi WRIT PETITION i\EO.81"3iO/2«0Q2',(S¢i§): ': BETWEEN: it A' T R.Gopa|, S/0. V.N.Raghavan,*-__ Aged 40 years and residing at 1826, II Stage, RajajEna.gar,,i""' = Bangaiore. V p .. PETITIONER 1. iv'i/s_. Canara Bank, a banking Company, '~'i.ncOrporated' «I.-..n.der the banking _ Co'mfpan~ies (Acquisition and Undertaking) ..IAct,,,I«9f;'Ofand having its H.O. at BAavng'a|Vorfe~.a'nd herein represented by "Its Ciiéirrtzan and Managing Director. 2. 4"T.heaGenerai Manager, , _ Canara Bank, ' "Staff Administration Section, " Head Office, Bangaiore. RESPONDENTS
V m”(8y Smt. S.R.Anuradha, for Sri D.E..N. Rao, Adv.)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226an’d..227
of the Constitution of India praying to direct-oy.”‘the
respondents to forthwith refund and pay to ti”ie-‘petitioner
the sum of Rs.S0,000/– (Rupees Fifty thousanVd’s-“onl_”y)’x4
collected by them aliegedly under the bond –at_’Annexure~ “C 2
supra, with compensatory cost in—*the—-nyature_o’f’damagjes.’.,
This petition coming on
Court made the following:
o
A Petitioner joined_._”t–he respondents on
15.12.1980 as_a to the Junior
“Officer Gravd.e4’i::’diuVrin;g made by him,
he to_’WCHavnbani< Computers Services
Ltd., 27.8.1997. The period was
exteiided 'for-ruponle year on 17.10.2000. The petitioner
retirement on 3.5.2001 and was
replievefd-..yv'on.i'.'Al-.*'6.2001. He has filed this writ petition to
d'irect__v'thie'~" respondents to refund Rs.S0,000/- collected
.Aundei'..-Lpursuant to a bond as at Annexure~C with
0' 'i.V_V'c.ornpensatory costs in the nature of damages.
2. Respondents have fiied statement of objections
and have stated that, the petitioner i/Q5 permitted to
/’ »
r”
proceed on deputation to Canbank for a period of’3f”L-yeaiprs
subject to the condition that, he shall exectrpéte
Rs.50,000/~ as per the proformar”before”Hhsis’.’Ih.El.ief’_’_ifrornit’
Head Office and that, he was riot elig’iblei«rtjteeptgtatiajhp
allowances from the re’po__rtingA:~.:a’t..;””Can:bank’,’VV
Bangalore. The petitioner égotllrelieved .oflnV1.8..l:§().1997 to
work at Canbank. He’ va:n’»»agreement dated
29.9.1997, whet-ein iwiould work ih the
Canara years after being
relieved_frlorn;the«.pde.putati.on organisation i.e., Canbank
and since default and opted voluntary
E’et:il’EfT].ent4.VO’F1″V3′;S.2tjU1T and was relieved on 4.6.2001, he
.;§hatrllent’it:ed toW§s.50,0OO/~ claimed in the writ petition.
has:”‘heen-further contended that, the claim involves
dis_put__ed ,uc;7t’.iestion of facts and cannot be gone into in the
to \/;\{l’it:}’U~5;lSdiCti0n.
3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and
H perused the writ papers.
4. Indisputedly, the petitioner was an empiiohyee of
the Canara Bank from 15.12.1980. On exe~rc.i,se’:’__o€j’the
option, he was sent on deputation _to,’v:A”C,ari.banki’
27.8.1997. He has executed’ :,a”g_reein_.ent._;as__at
Annexure~C, which provides’ for payment ofV,’F{s.,’,SO,00o/;,
the petitioner to the Canara”B:a’nk ‘inV”eas”e-‘of iiiifioliation of
any of the agreed terjrris. petitioner contends that, he
has not vioiated the depvutation :ter’rriis’iA–a_~nd_’.~hence, the bank
is not justifi_’eti”j,fiifi”wifhho,id{ng”~i§s’§5o,,Qé0/-. The petitioner
contends violation of any of the terms of
the agr.eement_iVasf at’~«..}§§i’.nexu re~C dated 29.9.2997 and
hegi’ce,_ he V-is_”e’ntitiedv to be refunded the amount of
deposited with the respondents.
A other hand, the respondents maintain that,
the ..petitioner did not complete 3 years of service after
2 V being “relieved by Canbank and hence, the deposited sum
cannot be refunded in view of the terms of the agreement
H as at Annexure-C. EL.
/I
6. Whether there is breach of any of the.._o–hiVio’a’ti.onVs
undertaken by the petitioner or not, is a
required to be adjudicated upon iatrialiE:)e..ing;hAeid__iri’a?Civil ‘
Court. in view of the disputed que.stiori of »invol–.ye.d”i’nVV
the matter, I deem it appr’c;..pVi*i~ate to~..dispo’:3eV””o’t”the writ’
petition with iibertyv’being,»irése,ryedsi_._to th’e”rpetitioner to
approach the Civii Court forllrelief.
It if._4th.e”‘pVe’ti’tioner files a suit for
recovery of Rs.S0,()G’U’/- the time
spent in bona ‘petition shall be
taken into consideraticlimhyon Vari__l4apVplic.ation being filed by
the peti_ti’or3Ver fi 0V1.’;htVi’ie.._LiiTi”aitati0n Act, 1963. The
case of ,tVhev.parties’ivA.is”*k_ept open for consideration in
tnels..%;%i, if were to be’ii’l’ed.Foy the petitioner.
‘ ll petitipon llstands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/3,
lodge
KS3″/'”~