M.C. Ratnakaran v. Canara Bank

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN** **TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932** **OP.No. 37198 of 2001(C)** **-----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** - **-------------------** **M.C. RATNAKARAN (27377) (RETD. OFFICER, CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, CALICUT) 'VASANTH', 39/1361A, NEAR RAMACHANDRA NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, PUTHIYANGADI, PAVANGAD P.O., CALICUT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.NARAYANAN, SRI.SAJAN SREERAJ, SRI.T. RAM PRASAD UNNI** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------------** **1. THE CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, 112 J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE - 2 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR.** ## **2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, CANARA BANK BUILDINGS, M.G. ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **R1 & R2 BY SRI.M.C.SEN, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN** **THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **SVS.** **ORDER IN C.M.P.NO. 60898 OF 2001 IN O.P.NO. 37198 OF 2001.** ## **DISMISSED** **31/08/2010** **SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1: COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 20/08/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **P2: COPY OF LETTER OF UNDERTAKING ISSUED BY THE CANARA BANK.** - **P3: COPY OF LETTER DATED 28/09/2001 SENT BY THE PETITIONER.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** - **R1A: COPY OF LETTER NO.TSO/T.282/27377/TJ DATED 14/08/2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **R1B: COPY OF LETTER KRO/STF/27377/PR DATED 24/08/2001 CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, CALICUT.** - **R1C: COPY OF PROFORMA OF THE LETTER OF UNDERTAKING WHICH THE PETITIONER HAS REFUSED TO SIGN.** - **R1D: COPY OF LETTER NO.TSO/4887/T.282/TJ DATED 27/09/2001 OF THE CANARA BANK TO THE PETITIONER.** - **R1E: COPY OF GAZETTE OF INDIA DATED 30/11/2002.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A TO JUDGE** **SVS.** ## **S. SIRI JAGAN, J.** ------------------------------ ## O.P. No. 37198 OF 2010 ------------------------------Dated this the 31[st] day of August, 2010 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner retired from service of the first respondent bank on 14.8.2001. However, he was not given pension and other retirement benefits calculated on the basis of the rules in force as on the date of his retirement namely, 14.8.2001. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application for such retirement benefits. In reply to the same, the petitioner was supplied with Ext.P2 proforma of an undertaking to be filled up and submitted by the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was to authorise the bank to release the provisional pension reckoning pre-revised pay till such time Canara Bank (Employees) Pensions Regulations 1995 are amended and also undertaking to refund or irrevocably authorise the bank to recover any excess amount paid on account of salary revision. The petitioner refused to submit such an undertaking in so far as, according to the petitioner, the petitioner is not liable to give such an undertaking and he is entitled to payment of pension calculated on the basis of the O.P.No.37198/2001 2 rules in force as on the date of his retirement without reference to any amendment proposed to be carried out to the rules in future, which is the reason for insisting on the undertaking. Since he did not submit the proforma undertaking, retirement benefits were not paid to the petitioner. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this original petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to immediately disburse to the petitioner all amounts of pension and commutation benefits etc. due to him with interest at 18% per annum from the date on which it is payable till the date of actual payment. ii) To declare that the denial of pension and commutation benefits to the petitioner is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, void”. Subsequently, the petitioner got the original petition amended by filing I.A.No.8712/2003 adding one more prayer namely: “Declare that the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits as per the Pension regulations which were in force and prevailing on the date of his retirement i.e. On 14-08-2001” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents taking the contention that during the negotiations with the trade unions and associations of officers of the bank for salary revision during 1999-2000, it was agreed that in O.P.No.37198/2001 3 relation to an officer employee who retires on or after the first day of April 1998 'pay' for the purpose of pension shall be aggregate of the pre-revised pay and the dearness allowance thereon calculated at 1616 points of the All India Average Consumer Price Index for industrial workers in the series 1960=100. Based on the said understanding between the management and the associations it was decided to make suitable amendments to the regulations applicable to the employees. Pending formal amendment of the regulations the service benefits including pension was to be disbursed on adhoc basis, for which purpose an undertaking as per Ext.P2 was also to be obtained from the ex-employee in order to facilitate recovery of any excess payments made to the exemployee, if applicable as per the amended Pension Regulations. According to the respondents, it is in accordance with the said understanding that the petitioner was directed to submit a declaration in the form provided as per Ext.P2. But the petitioner refused to submit an undertaking in that form and consequently the retirement benefits were not paid to the petitioner. Later on, the rules were formally amended on O.P.No.37198/2001 4 30.11.2002 and thereafter in accordance with the amended regulations the retirement benefits due to the petitioner has been paid. The respondents would contend that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits more than what has been so paid to him. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The petitioner now admits that the petitioner has received the retirement benefits paid to him in accordance with the regulations amended as per amendment on 30.11.2002. But he submits that he is entitled to the balance retirement benefits also calculated on the basis of the rules applicable as on the date of his retirement namely 14.8.2001. In support of his contention he relies on two decisions, one of this Court namely, _**Syndicate Bank**_ v. _**Celine Thomas**_ [2005 KHC 1841] and _**Chairman, Railway Board and others**_ v. _**C.R. Rangadhamaiah**_ and others [1997(6) SCC 623]. 4. Admittedly as on the date of the retirement of the petitioner namely, 14.8.2001 the amended rules were only in contemplation. Rules were amended only on 30.11.2002. That amendment was not even made retrospective. I am of O.P.No.37198/2001 5 opinion that the understanding, if any, between the associations of officers and the bank cannot override the statutory regulations regarding retirement benefits due to the petitioner. In fact, it has been held so by the Division Bench in _**Celine Thomas's case**_ (supra). Therein what was in question was whether a memorandum of understanding can be relied upon against the statutory rules. Considering that question in paragraph 7 of the judgment the Division Bench held thus: “7.Memorandum of Understanding cannot meddle with the statutory prescriptions. Nobody can agree by way of a settlement at the behest of an organisation taking away the benefit conferred on individuals by way of statutes or statutory rules. There need not have any authority to substantiate this. Statutory prescriptions crystalize the rights in favour of the subjects of that statute. It cannot be varied to their disadvantage unless otherwise by amendment to the statute. Of course, in the case of regulation governing the employees of the Syndicate Bank, the regulation has been amended as provided in the last proviso to Clause 46 quoted above. But, that amendment had been incorporated far later than the date of retirement of th petitioners in O.P.No.3502 off2002 and no provision in the parent statute enabling retrospective amendment is brought to our notice. Therefore, such amendment can have only prospective effect affecting those who retired later than such amendment. But going by the works contained in that provision it cannot affect even such persons. So, that amendment will not adversely affect any of the statutory benefit entitled to the petitioners in O.P.No.3502 of 2000”. O.P.No.37198/2001 6 Here, also the bank is relying on an understanding between the officers associations and the bank which has absolutely no statutory force especially against statutory rules in force at the relevant time. In fact, the Supreme Court has in the decision in _**Rangadhamaiah**_ **’s** case (supra) went to the extent of holding that even a retrospective amendment cannot take away the rights of an employee for retirement benefits in accordance with the rules in force as on the date of his retirement. The ratio of these decisions is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner. As I have already stated, admittedly, on the date of his retirement, the rules, which the bank has applied for calculating the petitioner's retirement benefits, had not yet come into force at all. It was only in contemplation. The so called understanding between the officers and the bank does not have any statutory backing whatsoever and that understanding cannot be relied upon to deny the petitioner retirement benefits on the basis of statutory rules which were in force as on the date of the petitioner's retirement. Therefore, I have absolutely no hesitation to hold that the stand of the bank is totally O.P.No.37198/2001 7 unsustainable. Accordingly, I declare that the petitioner is entitled to the balance retirement benefits also calculated on the basis of the rules in force as on the date of the petitioner’s retirement, namely 14.8.2001, without taking into account the amendments made to the rules which came into force on 30.11.2002. Consequently, there would be a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner the arrears of retirement benefits due to him on the basis of the unamended rules as in force as on 14.8.2001 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. ## **S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE** acd O.P.No.37198/2001 8 O.P.No.37198/2001 9