John K. Madathivila v. State Bank of Travancore and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/27TH MAGHA, 1937** ## **WP(C).No. 34194 of 2015 (Y)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **------------------** **JOHN K. MADATHIVILA, NEDUMPANA PO, KOLLAM PIN:691 576, WORKED AS DEPUTY MANAGER, SBT PULMON JN, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DIST.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.SANJAY SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SMT.C.N.NOORUL HIDAYA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **-----------------------** **1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPURA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695012.** **2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR) STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPURA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695012.** **3. THE CHIEF MANAGER SBT PULMON JN, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM PIN 691 533.** **R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 34194 of 2015 (Y)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** ## **P1 - COPY OF LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION BY THE SBT DATED 05.12.2013** **P2 - COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.07.2014 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------------------------** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **JJJ** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** -----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 34194 of 2015 (Y) -----------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of February, 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner had service in the respondent Bank from 14.2.2000 to 5.12.2013. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent Bank as a Cashier/Clerk and resigned on 5.12.2013 as Deputy Manager. The petitioner's resignation was accepted as per Ext.P1. The petitioner claims pension for the period of service rendered in the respondent Bank. The petitioner's claim is that the petitioner is entitled to such pension as per clause 19 of the State Bank of Travancore (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (for brevity 'Regulations of 1979'). 2. The Bank declined pension for reason of the resignation of the petitioner having led to forfeiture of ## **W.P.(C) No. 34194/2015** **-2-** his past service. The petitioner had approached this Court based on a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in **Varghese E. K. v. State of Kerala and others - 2014 (1) KHC 814,** which is reversed by a Division Bench in **State of Kerala and others v. E.K. Varghese - 2016 (1) KHC 35 (DB)** . Hence the forfeiture clause cannot be challenged. 3. As per Regulation 19, the age of retirement of an officer is 60 years or upon the completion of 30 years' service, whichever is earlier. Two stages of extension are provided, where on completion of 30 years of service if the officer has reached the age of 55 years then the Bank could grant an extension up to 58 years. Likewise, in the second stage, on attaining 58 years of age, with 30 completed years of service, then a further extension could be granted till 60 years of age. It is not clear as to how the petitioner can claim any ## **W.P.(C) No. 34194/2015** **-3-** benefit under the same, since the petitioner resigned from the service of the respondent Bank as per Ext.P1. In any event, the petitioner had not completed 30 years of service and there was no question of extension at all. The petitioner could have continued by himself till the age of 60, even without any extension being granted. But the petitioner chose to resign from the services of the Bank. 4. The further contention is that the State Bank of Travancore (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, (for brevity 'Regulations of 1995') does not refer to the officers and hence, would not be applicable to the petitioner. This contention is raised to controvert the ground raised by the respondent Bank that as per clause 22 of the Regulations of 1995, on resignation, the service is forfeited. It is to be noticed that the pension entitlement of an employee in the respondent Bank arises from the Regulations of 1995. An ## **W.P.(C) No. 34194/2015** **-4-** 'employee' is defined under Regulation 2(n) of the Regulations of 1995, to mean any person employed in the service of the Bank inter alia on full time work. Hence, even officers employed under the respondent Bank would come under the definition of an 'employee' as per the Regulations of 1995. It is also to be noticed that if the petitioner's contention is accepted that the employees do not take in the officer, then it would lead to an anomalous situation that the officers are not entitled to pension at all. 5. As per Regulation 22(1) of the Regulations of 1995, cessation of employment inter alia by resignation would entail forfeiture of the entire past service and consequently the same would not qualify for pensionary benefits. In the teeth of the above said regulations, there could be no pension claim raised by the petitioner. The petitioner also has a contention that ## **W.P.(C) No. 34194/2015** **-5-** the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India - 2015 KHC 4691** , in the case of a person who resigned after 20 years' service, held him to be eligible to pension since the period qualifies for voluntary retirement and the employee had an unblemished service during the 20 years he spent in employment. In the present case, the minimum qualifying service for voluntary retirement is 20 years. The qualifying service for pension is 10 years, but resignation entails forfeiture of the entire past service. The petitioner was aware of the said stipulation and had resigned from the Bank on his own with open eyes. The petitioner then cannot turn around and claim the pension. Even going by the Supreme Court judgment, the petitioner did not have the required service to seek for voluntary retirement. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not ## **W.P.(C) No. 34194/2015** **-6-** applicable since that was in the specific facts of the employee having resigned after 20 years of service, which ordinarily qualified for and enabled voluntary retirement. The writ petition would stand dismissed. No Costs. Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 16/2/16