Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchAppeals and Review Petitions dismissed. No orde...

R. Balakrishna Bhat & Ors. v. Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal Nos. 3762-3764 of 2014
Neutral Citation:[2018] 5 S.C.R. 469

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • Adarsh Kumar Goel
  • Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment Date
2018-05-16
Court Decision / Holding
Appeals and Review Petitions dismissed. No order as to costs.
Final Disposition
Appeals and Review Petitions dismissed. No order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • R. Balakrishna Bhat
  • Others

Respondents

  • Bank of Baroda
  • Others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Ms. V. Mohana
  • • V. K. Bali
  • • R. Viduthalai
  • • Sukumar Pattjoshi
  • • G Dhruv Mehta
  • • Sr. Advs.
  • • Rajshekhar Rao
  • • Sewaram
  • • K. Harsha Vardhan
  • • Ms. Kruttika Vijay
  • • Abhinav Mukerji
  • • Aditya Soni
  • • K.V. Jagdishvaran
  • • Mrs. G. Indira
  • • Bhupendra Singh Chauhan
  • • Nishe Rajen Shonker
  • • V. G. Pragasam
  • • Rajesh Kumar
  • • Gaurav Kr. Singh

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Ms. V. Mohana
  • • V. K. Bali
  • • R. Viduthalai
  • • Sukumar Pattjoshi
  • • G Dhruv Mehta
  • • Sr. Advs.
  • • Rajshekhar Rao
  • • Sewaram
  • • K. Harsha Vardhan
  • • Ms. Kruttika Vijay
  • • Abhinav Mukerji
  • • Aditya Soni
  • • K.V. Jagdishvaran
  • • Mrs. G. Indira
  • • Bhupendra Singh Chauhan
  • • Nishe Rajen Shonker
  • • V. G. Pragasam
  • • Rajesh Kumar
  • • Gaurav Kr. Singh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch of civil appeals concerns pension and dearness allowance within the realm of service law. The appellants, led by R. Balakrishna Bhat, challenged orders arising from writ petitions at the Madras High Court, which traced a course back to the earlier Single Judge decision and the subsequent division-bench review. The High Court’s 9 October 2013 order, which dismissed writ petitions, followed the 2012 order of a Single Judge allowing relief in writ petitions challenging the pension–related claims. The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge’s stance by relying on its earlier decision in Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. C.R. Chandrasekaran etc., treating the issues as identical to those addressed in that line of cases. The Supreme Court later affirmed the Indian Overseas Bank decision in Civil Appeal Nos. 8420–8421 of 2013 (order dated 01.02.2017), reinforcing the approach adopted by the Division Bench. The Court also notes similarity with Union Bank of India v. United Bank of India Retirees’ Welfare Association and others, disposed of by a judgment of even date. Consequently, in terms of that controlling authority, these appeals are dismissed; no order as to costs."

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. C.R. Chandrasekaran et al.Civil Appeal Nos. 8420-8421 of 2013; 01.02.2017PositiveThe Division Bench’s judgment was affirmed by this Court on 01.02.2017, thereby endorsing the approach relied upon in the present matter.
Union Bank of India v. United Bank of India Retirees’ Welfare Association and others5 SCR 436 (2018)PositiveThe present controversy is said to be similar and is disposed of by the judgment of even date, guiding the present dismissal.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against R. Balakrishna Bhat & Ors. v. Bank of Baroda & Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

469 [2018] 5 S.C.R. 469 R. BALAKRISHNA BHAT & ORS. ETC. A v. BANK OF BARODA & ORS. ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3762-3764 of 2014) B MAY 16, 2018 ## **[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]** _Service law: Pension – Dearness allowance – Controversy in the present appeals are similar to that arising in the case reported in [2018] 5 SCR 436 – Present appeals dismissed in terms of said judgment._ C _Indian Overseas Bank and Another_ v. _C.R. Chandrasekaran etc._ **decided by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8420-8421 of 2013 on 01.02.2017 – referred to.** D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 37623764 of 2014. E From the Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2013 of the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 1127-1129 of 2013. **==> picture [30 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** F R.P. (C) No.1202 of 2017 in C.A. No.8422 of 2013 R.P. (C) No.1201 of 2017 in C.A. No.8424 of 2013 Ms. V. Mohana, V. K. Bali, R. Viduthalai, Sukumar Pattjoshi, G Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Advs., Rajshekhar Rao, Sewaram, K. Harsha Vardhan, Ms. Kruttika Vijay, Abhinav Mukerji, Aditya Soni, K.V. Jagdishvaran, Mrs. G. Indira, Bhupendra Singh Chauhan, Nishe Rajen Shonker, V. G. Pragasam, Rajesh Kumar, Gaurav Kr. Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties. H 469 470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 5 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.** 1. These appeals by special leave arise out of Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras allowing Writ Appeal Nos.1127 to 1129 of 2013 and dismissing Writ Petition Nos.6632 of 2007, 9952 of 2007 B and 14983 of 2007. 2. The aforesaid Writ Petitions preferred by the present appellants were allowed by Single Judge of High Court vide common Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2012. While setting aside the decision of the Single Judge, the Division Bench relied upon its Judgment rendered in C Writ Appeal No.355 of 2013 and allied matters ( _**Indian Overseas Bank and Another**_ v. _**C.R. Chandrasekaran etc**_ .) 3. Said Judgment rendered in _**Indian Overseas Bank and Another**_ v. _**C.R. Chandrasekaran etc.**_ by the Division Bench was affirmed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.8420-8421 of 2013 vide order dated 01.02.2017. D 4. The controversy in the present appeals is similar to that arising in Union Bank of India vs. United Bank of India Retirees’ Welfare Associations and others which have been disposed of by us vide Judgment of even date. Since the issues involved in the present matter are identical, E these appeals are dismissed in terms of our Judgment rendered in United Bank of India and Others etc. 5. The appeals and review petitions, therefore, stand dismissed. No order as to costs. F Devika Gujral Appeals and Review Petitions dismissed. G H