K.V. Padmaja v. Kerala Gramin Bank & others (WA Nos. 1493 of 2023 and 1877 of 2022)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA** **MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.672 OF 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **K.V.PADMAJA AGED 65 YEARS AATHIRA, NEAR VIVEK NAGAR COLONY, PALLIKKUNNU.P.O., KANNUR-670004, PIN - 670004** **BY ADVS. Martin Jose P P.PRIJITH(K/233/2005) R.GITHESH(K/630/2002) AJAY BEN JOSE(K/729/2012) MANJUNATH MENON(K/000474/2015) SACHIN JACOB AMBAT(K/734/2016) ANNA LINDA EDEN(K/1201/2020) HARIKRISHNAN S.(K/497/2019) S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-571)** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**KERALA GRAMIN BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN**| |---|---| ||**KGB TOWERS, A.K.ROAD, MALAPPURAM-, PIN - 676505**| |**2**|**GENERAL MANAGER, HUMAN RESOURCE WING,**| ||**HEAD OFFICE, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, KGB TOWERS, A.K.ROAD,**| ||**MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505**| |**3**|**CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND**| ||**CEO**| ||**HEAD OFFICE, 112 JC ROAD, HALSURPETE, NAGARATHPETE,**| ||**BANGALURU, KARNATAKA-560002, PIN - 560002**| |**4**|**GENERAL MANAGER, REGIONAL RURAL BANK CELL**| ||**CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, 112 JC ROAD, HALSURPETE,**| ||**NAGARATHPETE, BANGALURU, KARNATAKA-560002, PIN - 560002**| **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **2** **5 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AFFAIRS, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001, PIN - 110001** **BY ADVS. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR Gopikrishnan Nambiar M KRISHNADAS P. NAIR K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984) JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526) KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003) PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006)** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 18.03.2024, ALONG WITH WA.1877/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **3** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL &** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WA NO. 1877 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.27884 OF 2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER/REVIEW PETITIONER:** **DAYA V.K., AGED 59 YEARS ATTUPURATHILLAM,PATTENA,NILESHWAR,KASARGOD, PIN - 671314** **BY ADVS. H.VISHNUDAS GEORGE VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN WP(C):** - **1 KERALA GRAMIN BANK,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KGB TOWERS, A.K. ROAD, MALAPPURAM-, PIN - 676505** - **2 GENERAL MANAGER, HUMAR RESOURCE WING, HEAD OFFICE, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, KGB TOWERS, A.K. ROAD, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505** - **3 CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE, 112 JC ROAD, HALSURPETE, NAGARATHPETE, BANGALURU, KARNATAKA, PIN - 560002** - **4 GENERAL MANAGER, REGIONAL RURAL BANK CELL, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE: 112 JC ROAD, HALSURPETE, NAGARATHPETE, BANGALURU, KARNATAKA,, PIN - 560002** - **5 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (BANKING DIVISION), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI., PIN - 110001** **BY ADVS. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 18.03.2024, ALONG WITH** **WA.1493/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **4** ## JUDGMENT ## Amit Rawal, J. 1. Two writ appeals have arisen against the judgments of the Single Bench rendered in WP(C) No.672 of 2020 and 27884 of 2019 whereby identical reliefs claimed by the appellants, petitioners have been rejected. 2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are that both the appellants were in the employment of the Regional Rural Bank of Kerala. Both north and south Regional Rural Banks was amalgamated with the Kerala Gramin Bank effective from 8.7.2013. The Regional Rural Banks were governed by an Act of 21(1976) called Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. Section 23A inserted vide Act No.1 of 1988 ie., from 28.9.1988, envisage certain situations including the one which has arisen in the present case giving option to the employees of a transferor bank of not becoming an employee of the transferee bank by submitting an option within three (3) months of the next following dates on which the amalgamation had taken place. Meaning thereby within three months from the date of **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **5** notification ie., 8.7.2013, such employees had three months of grace period to exercise such option. 3. Concededly, both the appellants, writ petitioners submitted their option by not opting to be the employees of the transferree bank, ie., Kerala Gramin Bank. The said option was earlier rejected but later, on the intervention of this Court for considering the request again, the respondent Bank vide communications dated 25.4.2015 and 30.4.2015 respectively accepted the request to quit. It is a matter of record that both the appellants/petitioners had rendered more than twenty years of qualifying service and had become the member of the employees pension scheme. 4. The employees of the Regional Rural Bank had been agitating the grievance before various courts of the country for equal pay for equal work ie., the disparity amongst in respect of pay viz-a-viz the employees working in the Nationalized banks. The said controversy was sorted by virtue of a judgment by the Supreme Court in SLP No.39288 of 2012 offering options vide communication dated 7.1.2019. In lieu thereof, all the retired and serving employees submitted form for the purpose of **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **6** difference between the disparity as well as pension. Benefit was also decided to be extended to the families of the deceased employees. On amalgamation, Kerala Gramin Bank came out with a service Regulations namely Kerala Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2013 under Chapter VII (Miscellaneous Regulations 71). As per said regulations an officer or employee who has completed continuous minimum service as provided under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous provisions of Act, 1952 shall be the member of the employees Provident Fund and contribution to the provident fund and also be governed by the provisions of employees pension scheme 1995 framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6A of the Act. The amendment was caused vide notification dated 2.11.2018, by giving the nomenclature as Kerala Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service (Amendment) Regulations, 2018 and under Regulation 71, after sub-regulation (2), regulation (3) was inserted for consideration of matter in respect of the officer or the employee for exercising the option to become a member of the Pension Regulation Fund under sub-regulation(1) of **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **7** regulation 3 of the Pension Regulations and after exercising the said option for refunding the amount by causing the trust of the Provident Fund of the Bank to transfer the entire contribution of the Bank along with the interest. 5. All the affected employees including the appellantspetitioners received a notice dated 7.1.2019 to submit an option in writing within 29[th] April 2019 ie., 120 days from the notified date, both days are inclusive) for the purpose of pension. 6. Both the appellants, petitioners submitted their options. It is pertinent to mention here since the appellantspetitioners did not opt to be the employees of the transferee bank, the respondent bank while accepting the options in April 2015 mentioned that they will be entitled to all the retirement benefits on certain terms and conditions. 7. When the aforementioned regulations were promulgated, both the writ petitioners staked their claim by opting the option but were not considered by the respondent, Kerala Gramin Bank, resulted into institution of the writ petitions with the following prayers: **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **8** ## WP(C) No.27884 of 2019 I. to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to sanction pension to the petitioner with effect from 1.4.2018 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; ## WP(C) No.672 of 2020 1. 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 1.4.2018 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. 8. The respondent in the counter objected to the said claim on various grounds but the genesis has been that there was no relationship of employer and employee at the time when the new pension regulations 2018 came into force for both the petitioners had exercised their option from quitting the service as per the provisions of sub Section 3(b) under Section 23A of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (hereinafter called 1976 Act). Both the petitioners have been given all the retiral benefits except pension. Pensionary benefits have been sanctioned to the employees of Regional Rural Banks with effect from 1.4.2018 as per 2018 Regulations. In view of the option **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **9** and the request submitted by both the petitioners-appellants indicative of quitting wherein they categorically stated of quitting from the job cannot be equated with the retirement and would be construed to be equivalent to resignation. In support of the contentions reliance has been laid to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. Shree Lal Meena (2019) 4 SCC 479 . 9. Learned Single Bench on analysis of the rival contentions and the documents, much less the case law as referred above, rejected the claim of the appellants, petitioners. 10. Learned Senior counsel representing the appellants in both the writ appeals have raised almost similar arguments by laying challenge to the judgment of the Single Bench which are summarized as under: (i). The expression 'resignation, voluntary retirement and retirement/superannuation' have a different connotation. A person who has rendered a qualifying service would have an option of either submitting a resignation, which is a unilateral **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **10** act or voluntary retirement but would be subject to the approval of the employer. (ii). The expression 'quit' while exercising the option cannot be read as a 'resignation' but at the best 'voluntary retirement' and therefore would be entitled to all the benefits till 2015 and post ie., upto the date of death. (iii). Appellants have also been denied difference of pay as granted by the Supreme Court viz-a-viz the employees of National Banks and Regional Rural Banks. (iv). In support of the contentions and expressions 'retirement/superannuation, resignation, voluntary retirement' relied upon paragraph 22 of the judgment cited supra and also following other case laws: BSES Yamuna Power Limited v. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma and Anothers (2020) 3 SCC 346, Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (2016) 13 SCC 797 and State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. OP Gupta (AIR 2022 SC 4538). (v). As per the information received under the RTI Act **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **11** from Karnataka Gramin Bank, it has surfaced that the Karnataka Gramin Bank granted and disbursed the pension to the staff members who quit the Bank under Section 23A (3) (b) of RRB Act, 1976. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the judgment of the Single Bench and submitted that the information obtained under RTI Act is vague. It is not fathomed whether the Karnataka Gramin Bank have different regulations protecting the pensionary benefits in respect of the employees who exercised the option under the provisions of Section 23 A of the 1976 Act. There was no relationship of employer and employee. Appellantspetitioners are intending to put the clock back and also cannot rely upon the pendency of the the litigation which pertaining to disparity in the pay. The option exercised from the retired employees, deceased family members and the existing employees was to recoup the difference between the short fall of the salary and the pension, nothing beyond. The paragraph 26 of the same judgment in Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others (supra) lays down to **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **12** the extent that each and every provisions has to be read unless there is some convenient or capable of another interpretation. Financial implication is the most important factor to be looked into by the State. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. Section 23A of 1976 Act reads as under: ## _**23A. Amalgamation of Regional Rural Banks.-**_ (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if the Central Government, after consultation with the National Bank, the concerned State Government and the Sponsor Bank, is of the opinion that it is necessary in the public interest or in the interest of the development of the area served by any Regional Rural Bank or in the interest of the Regional Rural Banks themselves, that two or more Regional Rural Banks should be amalgamated, that Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, provide for the amalgamation of such Regional Rural Banks (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the transferor Regional Rural banks) into a single Regional Rural Bank (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the transferee Regional Rural Bank) with such constitution, property, powers, rights, interests, authorities and privileges; and with such liabilities, duties and obligations, as may be specified in the notification.(2)Every notification issued under sub-section (1) shall indicate the date with effect from which the amalgamation shall become effective.(3)Every notification issued under subsection (1) may also provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:--(a)the continuance in service of all the employees of the transferor Regional Rural Banks (excepting such of them as not being workmen with in the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) are specifically mentioned in the notification) in the transferee Regional Rural Bank at the same remuneration and on the same terms and **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **13** conditions of service, which they were getting or, as the case may be, by which they were being governed, immediately before the date on which the amalgamation takes effect; (b)notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), where any of the employees of the transferor Regional Rural Banks, not being workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) are specifically mentioned in the notification, or where any employee of the transferor Regional Rural Banks has by notice in writing given to the transferee Regional Rural Bank at any time before the expiry of a period of three months next following the date on which the amalgamation takes effect, intimated his intention of not becoming an employee of the transferee Regional Rural Bank, the payment to such employee of compensation, if any, to which he is entitled under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and such gratuity, provident fund and other retirement benefits ordinarily admissible to him under the rules or authorisations of the concerned transferor Regional Rural Banks immediately before that date;(c)the other terms and conditions for the amalgamation of Regional Rural Banks; and(d)the continuance by or against the transferee Regional Rural Bank of any pending legal proceeding by or against any transferor Regional Rural Banks and such consequential, incidental and supplemental provisions, as may, in the opinion of the Central Government, be necessary to give effect to the amalgamation. ## 13. Pursuant to the aforementioned option, one of the writ petitioners while exercising the option stated as under: I understand that during the amalgamation of two or more RRS's there is a provision of Section 23A(3)(b) Regional Rural Bank Act 1976) for the employees of the amalgamated banks to quit from service with all retirement benefits as eligible in the transferor bank by giving due notices within a period of 3 months from the date of Amalgamation. North Malabar Gramin Bank, where I have been working as Asst. Manager and South Malabar Gramin Bank has amalgamated to form Kerala Gramin Bank with effect from 8.7.2013. So far, I have not come across any instruction/guidelines from Kerala Gramin Bank regarding the provision for quit option which has to be exercised within a period of three months from the date of amalgamation. **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **14** Under the circumstance, I intend to exercise my quit option and retire from the service of Kerala Gramin Bank with all the entitled benefits as per the Act. Kindly treat this as my notice/intimation for availing quit option facility stated above within the prescribed time limit and request you to provide me the modalities (if any) to quit from the service of Kerala Gramin bank as per the above provision. 14. On perusal of the said option, it is crystal clear that the intention was to exercise resignation by using the word, 'quit'. Appellant's, petitioner's request was accepted in the following manner: Ext.P5 in WP(C) No.1327 of 2023 : Smt. Padmaja K V, Staff No 3030, Assistant Manager of our Puthiyatheru branch who joined in the service of the Bank on 01.09.1977, has opted to quit from the service of our Bank, as per the provisions contained in Chapter V-A, under section 23-A, sub section 3- b of RRB Act 1976 and requested to relieve her from the service on 30.04.2015 AOH. Board of Directors of the Bank has accepted the request of Smt. Padmaja K V, Staff No 3030, Asst. Manager, Puthiyatheru branch and she is relieved from the service of Kerala Gramin Bank on 30.04.2015 AOH. As such she shall cease to be an employee of the Bank with effect from 30.04.2015 AOH. Ext.P1 in WP(C) No.1877 of 2022 : Smt. Daya V K, Staff No 3640, Assistant Manager of our RO Kannur who joined in the service of the Bank on 28.05.1985, has opted to quit from the service of our Bank, as per the provisions contained in Chapter V - A under section 23-A, sub section 3- b of RRB Act 1976 and requested to relieve her from the service on 25.04.2015 AOH. Board of Directors of the Bank has accepted the request of Smt. Daya VK, Staff No 3640, Asst. Manager, RO Kannur and she is relieved from the service of Kerala Gramin Bank on 25.04.2015 AOH. As such she shall cease to be an employee of the Bank with effect from 25.04.2015 AOH. **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **15** 15. At the relevant point of time, the expression 'retirement' was not defined under 1976 Act but for the first time, it was defined under 2018 Regulation Act which reads as under: (x). 'retirement' means cessation from Bank's service - (i) on attaining the age of superannuation as specified in the service regulations; (ii) on voluntary retirement in accordance with provisions contained in regulation 28; (iii) on premature retirement by the Bank attaining the age of superannuation in accordance with provisions contained in regulation 30; ## 16. Clause 27 of the 2018 Regulation Act reads thus: ## 27. Pension on voluntary retirement.- (1) On or after the effective date, at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking or a company or institution or body, whether incorporated or not, to which he is on deputation, at the time of seeking voluntary retirement. 17. Here also, there is no usage of expression 'resignation or quitting' except for 'superannuation and voluntary retirement'. Appellants-petitioners from 2015 till promulgation of the new Regulations in 2018 did not challenge their **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **16** acceptance of quitting being the employee of the transferee Bank rather acquiesced to the terms and conditions of the letter, extracted above. 18. The notice inviting options from various employees including the retired was with an intention to give difference of salary/pension owing to the decision promulgated by the Supreme Court where the controversy with regard to equal pay for equal work viz-a-viz the employees in Nationalized Bank and Regional Rural Bank had been settled. Both the appellants, petitioners exercised the option and in there option also, specifically mentioned as 'quit'. It would be expedient to extract the option invited from all the employees dated 7.1.2019. The same reads as under: Option or pension to Employees /Officers/Retirees/Family members of deceased employees/officers Pursuant to the order dated 25[th] April 2018 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP © 39288/2011 regarding grant of pension to the employees of RRBs approval of DFS, MOF, GOT and in terms of guidelines issued by NABARD and in consultation with Canara Bank and in accordance with Section 30(1) of the RRB Act, 1976, the Board of Directors in its 37[th] meeting held on 2[nd] November, 2018 has approved Kerala Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service (Amendment) Regulations, 2018 and Kerala Gramin Bank (Employees) Pension, Regulations 2018 which have come into force on and from 31[st] December 2018, the date of publication in the official gazette of GOI. The Officers/Employees, retirees and family members of deceased employees /officers of Kerala Gramin Bank are eligible to opt pension. All eligible retired staff and family members of deceased **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **17** employees/officers as per Kerala Gramin Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 2018 are advised to submit option in writing within 29[th] April 2019 (ie., 120 days from the notified date, both days are inclusive) for pension as per notification in the enclosed format. 19. The question which arise before the Single Bench and before us is 'whether quitting from the job in terms of the provisions of Section 23A would be voluntary retirement or a resignation'. In the first blush, the argument of the learned Senior counsel that both the employees had rendered more than 20 years of service and the said option could not be construed to be resignation but volunatry retirement looked attractive, but on minute perusal of the contents of the option invited and given, much less, their acceptance way back in April 2015 would lead to a irresistible conclusion that intention was to 'quit' from the job. In other words, did not intend to continue to be the employee of the transferree company. It is a matter of record that all the retirement benefits like gratuity and other benefits have already paid. No doubt, the appellants-petitioners did not agitate a specific claim with regard to non denial of the difference of pay though they discharged the duties for almost two years from the date of the amlagamation till the acceptance of their option. In the cited judgment, Senior Divisional **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **18** Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India the controversy was with regard to interpretation of LIC Rules and Regulations and entitlement of the benefit to the employee but each and every fact has to be decided on the touchstone of the material, as referred above, for the sake of repetition, do not fall within the ratio of decidendi and the observations recorded in the judgment cited, supra. The court cannot give a different tinge and colour on interpretation to the mind set of the officer/employee at the relevant point of time. The documents placed on record obtained under the RTI Act, no doubt, gave some hope to the appellants-petitioners as the employees who had exercised the option under Section 23A (3)(b) of the 1976 Act working under the Karnataka Gramin Bank had been given the benefit of pension but we have been prevented from notice the provisions of the regulations which were in force in Karnataka Gramin Bank to arrive at a just decision, thus, cannot be construed to be a magna carta. Regarding the non denial of the benefits viz-a-viz the disparity of pay for a period of two years, we are of the view that the Single Bench ought to have considered that aspect for bringing succor to such employees **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **19** who had wavering mind at the time of amalgamation of various banks. Considering the predicament, by upholding the judgment of the Single Bench, we dispose of appeals by giving further directions to the respondent to consider the claim of the appellants-petitioners of difference of pay and also the retirement benefits from 2013, till they were relieved from services. Let this exercise be undertaken, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE sab Sd/C.S. SUDHA JUDGE **WA NO. 1493 OF 2023** **20** ## **APPENDIX OF WA 1877/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P19** **PETITION TO ACCEPT ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT WITH EXT.P19 DATED 18.03.2022**