K. V. Padmaja v. Kerala Gramin Bank & Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **TUESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 672 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER:** K.V.PADMAJA AGED 63 YEARS AATHIRA, NEAR VIVEK NAGAR COLONY, PALLIKKUNNU P.O., KANNUR-670004. BY ADVS. V.K.PRASAD SRI.R.SUDHIR SRI.C.SIVADAS SMT.SREEJA BOSE ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 KERALA GRAMIN BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KGB TOWERS, A.K.ROAD, MALAPPURAM-676505. 2 GENERAL MANAGER, HUMAN RESOURCE WING, HEAD OFFICE, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, KGB TOWERS, A.K.ROAD, MALAPPURAM-676505. 3 CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO, HEAD OFFICE, 112 JC ROAD, HALSURPETE, NAGARATHPETE, BANGALURU, KARNATAKA-560002. 4 GENERAL MANAGER, REGIONAL RURAL BANK CELL, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, 112 JC ROAD, HALSURPETE, NAGARATHPETE, BANGALURU, KARNATAKA-560002. 5 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AFFAIRS, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001. BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.KRISHNADAS P.NAIR, CGC SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.672 OF 2020 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 20[th] day of December, 2022** ## This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: _“i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to consider Ext.P1 application and sanction pension to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2018 and to disburse the arrears of pension and to continue to pay monthly pension regularly as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a time-frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”_ 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager in the erstwhile North W.P.(C)No.672 OF 2020 3 Malabar Gramin Bank. The said bank was amalgamated to the Kerala Gramin Bank with effect from 08.07.2013. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted an option to quit the services of the transferee bank on 03.10.2013 as per the provisions contained in Sub Section (3) (b) of Section 23A of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. It is submitted that the pension scheme for the employees of the Kerala Gramin Banks was made applicable by the Regulation 32(1) of the Kerala Gramin Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 2018 which provides that an employee who was in service between the 1[st] day of September, 1987 and 31[st] day of March, 2010 and retired from the service of the Bank before 31[st] day of March, 2018 shall be eligible for payment of pension with effect from the 'effective date'. W.P.(C)No.672 OF 2020 4 4. It is submitted that since the petitioner was a person who was in service of the transferrer bank till 30.04.2015, she would also be entitled to opt for pension in terms of the Kerala Gramin Bank Employees) Pension Regulations, 2018. It is submitted that the request made by the petitioner for pension has not been considered on the ground that she had quit the services of the bank. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction to the respondents to consider Exhibit P1 application and sanction pension to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2018. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in **Shashikala Devi v. Central Bank of India and Others** (2015 KHC 3127) to contend that the petitioner having exercised the option to quit the services of the bank which had to be accepted by W.P.(C)No.672 OF 2020 5 the bank to make it operational, the quitting of services by the petitioner cannot be considered as a resignation. It is contended that since there was no option to avail voluntary retirement from the services of the bank at the relevant time, the petitioner had no other option but to exercise the quit option. It is contended that all she intended to do was to seek a voluntary retirement from the services of the bank and it was only because the VRS scheme was not operational in the bank at the relevant time that the petitioner was forced to submit a quit option. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pension being an incident of service and the Pension Regulations being a beneficial piece of legislation, the terms of the pension regulation have to be beneficially construed so as to grant the benefit of pension to the petitioner who was forced to quit W.P.(C)No.672 OF 2020 6 the services of the bank because there was no voluntary retirement option available at the relevant time. 6. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by respondents 1 and 2 wherein it is contended that the decisions relied on by the petitioner do not have application in view of the later decision of the Apex Court in **Senior Division Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others v. Shree Lal Meena** [2019 (4) SCC 479]. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the earlier decisions of the Apex Court in **Shashikala Devi (supra)** and **Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India** [2016 (13) SCC 797] have been held to be no longer . applicable in **Senior Division Manager (supra)** It is further stated referring to the said decision W.P.(C)No.672 OF 2020 7 that the issue of eligibility for pension cannot be dealt with on charity constraints and when the legislation brings forth beneficial provisions in the form of pension regulations from a particular date and on particular terms and conditions, the provision will have to be read as they read, unless there is some confusion or they are capable of another interpretation. It was further held that resignation and retirement are totally different and distinct and where an employee resigns from the service by his own voluntary act, the said resignation cannot be construed as a retirement for the purpose of eligibility of pension. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents would also bring to my notice that in almost identical circumstances, this Court had already considered the issue of quitting of service under Sub Section (3)(b) of Section 23A of the Regional W.P.(C)No.672 OF 2020 8 Rural Banks Act, 1976 and has held that such quitting would amount to resignation and a person who voluntarily quit service exercising the option under the said provisions cannot claim the benefits of the Kerala Gramin Bank Employees) Pension Regulations, 2018. The decision of the Apex Court in **Senior Division Manager (supra)** and **BSES Yamuna Power Limited v. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma and Another** [2020 (3) SCC 346] is also relied on. 8. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I notice that the issue raised in this writ petition is identical to the questions raised in W.P.(C) No.27884 of 2019. In the said case also, the petitioner who was working as Assistant Manager in the North Malabar Gramin Bank had submitted an option to quit the services of the bank under Section 23A (3)(b) of the W.P.(C)No.672 OF 2020 9 Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, which was initially rejected but was later allowed pursuant to the employee approaching this Court. Identical contentions were raised in the said case also. After considering the judgments of the Apex Court, this Court held that the option exercised by the petitioner would not amount to a retirement to make the employee eligible for pension in accordance with the Kerala Gramin Bank Employees) Pension Regulations, 2018. Since the questions considered in these writ petitions are the same, I am of the opinion that the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27884 of 2019 would apply in the instant case case also. Having voluntarily quit the services of the bank in 2015, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of pension which was brought into effect only by notification dated 21.11.2018. Had the petitioner continued W.P.(C)No.672 OF 2020 10 in service and retired from the services of the bank, she would have been entitled to pension. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner had voluntarily quit the services of the bank, the prayers as sought for cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. **Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** SSK/20/12 W.P.(C)No.672 OF 2020 11 ## **APPENDIX** ## PETITIONER EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1|A COPY OF THE OPTION FORM AND OTHER CONNECTED| |---|---| ||DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT BANK ON 02.02.2019.| |EXHIBIT P2|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE| ||CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DATED 08.07.2013 PUBLISHED IN| ||THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY DATED| ||08.07.2013.| |EXHIBIT P3|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN WRITING EXPRESSING| ||HER INTENTION OF NOT BECOMING AN EMPLOYEE OF THE| ||TRANSFEREE REGIONAL RURAL BANK ON 03.10.2013.| |EXHIBIT P4|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.03.2015,| ||PERMITTING THE PETITIONER FOR RETIRING FROM THE| ||SERVICE OF THE BANK.| |EXHIBIT P5|A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.04.2015| ||OF THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA GRAMIN BANK.| |EXHIBIT P6|A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF KERALA| ||GRAMIN BANK (EMPLOYEES) PENSION REGULATIONS,| ||2018.| |EXHIBIT P7|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07.01.2019| ||ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P8|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED| ||09.05.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P9|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED| ||12.06.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.| SSK //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE