Vasantha Shankar vs National Bank For Agrl. & Rural … on 17 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP.No. 3253 of 2000(K)



1. VASANTHA SHANKAR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRL. & RURAL DEVEL,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.ASHOKAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.THANKAPPAN, ADDL.CGSC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :17/02/2009

 O R D E R
                        S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                ------------------------------------
                    O.P. No. 3253 OF 2000
              ----------------------------------------
              Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner’s husband, who was an employee of the

respondent bank retired from the service on 31.3.1986. On such

retirement, he received his Provident Fund amount on 16.9.1986.

Thereafter, he expired on 3.11.1989. As per rule 31 of the

National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Pension

Regulations 1993, pension could be given to retired employees

provided they refund the Provident Fund contributions made by

the bank in respect of that employee with 6% interest.

Accordingly, for payment of family pension, the petitioner was

directed to refund an amount of Rs.97,549.50/- as the amounts

due towards refund of Provident Fund contributions with 6%

interest. The petitioner paid that amount and obtained family

pension. The petitioner now contends that the recovery of the

said amount from the petitioner is illegal and therefore the same

should be refunded to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore

seeks the following reliefs:

O.P.No.3253/200 2

“(i) declare clause 31 of National Bank for
Agriculture and Rural Development Pension
Regulations 1993, making the payment of pension
subject to the refunding National Bank’s contribution
to Provident Fund including interest received from
the National Bank together with simple Interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
withdrawal till the date of repayment illegal and
invalid.

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or direction directing the
respondents to refund an amount of Rs.97,905.70/-
which was remitted by the petitioner on 7.4.1999″.

The petitioner’s contention is that the condition to re-pay the

Provident Fund contributions for being eligible for pension is

arbitrary and unreasonable.

2. I have considered the contentions of the parties.

3. I am of opinion that after having refunded the

Provident Fund contributions as per Clause 31 of the

Regulations and having obtained the family pension, the

petitioner cannot, thereafter, turn around and challenge the

Clause claiming that she is not liable to refund the amount.

She cannot have the best of both worlds. She can either have

the Provident Fund benefits or the pension. Further she

becomes eligible for pension only as per the Regulations and

the petitioner cannot claim pension as per the Regulations and

O.P.No.3253/200 3

challenge the conditions imposed for becoming eligible for such

pension.

In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the

original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd