## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT:**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN**
**TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2016/2ND CHAITHRA, 1938**
**WA.No. 1765 of 2013 () IN WP(C).2409/2011 -------------------------------------------**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2409/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 25-09-2013**
**APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER IN WPC: ------------------------------**
**VIJAYA BANK RETIREES' ASSOCIATION, (REGISTERED OFFICE AT MAHAKAVI BHARATHIYAR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682035), CENTRAL OFFICE, PRESENTLY AT SHELL HOUSE, 89, 3RD FLOOR, JC ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY VISWANATHA NAIK, S/O. K.M. NAIK, BANK PENSIONER NO. 3417/C, 6TH CROSS 2ND MAIN, 2ND STAGE, GAYATHRI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560021.**
**BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AZIZ**
**RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN WPC: ---------------------------------**
**VIJAYA BANK**
**REPRESNTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.**
**BY SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD**
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**WA1765/13**
## **APPENDIX**
## **APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS**
**ANNEXURE A-1 : COPY OF ORDER OF HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.5195/2010. ANNEXURE A-2 : COPY OF ORDER BY HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.5398/2010**
**//TRUE COPY//**
**PA TO JUDGE.**
**jg-18/4**
## THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.
.................................................................... W.A.No.1765 of 2013 .................................................................... Dated this the 22[nd] day of March, 2016.
## J U D G M E N T
## Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
- 1.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Vijaya Bank Retirees' Association and the learned counsel for the respondent, Vijaya Bank.
2.Under attack is the decision of the learned single Judge issued in writ jurisdiction confining the relief to grant of voluntary retirement scheme benefits in terms of Regulation 29(5) of the Vijaya Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, for short “Pension Regulations, 1995” and the Vijaya Bank Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000, hereinafter referred to as 'VRS Scheme'. The learned single Judge did not grant relief of interest as sought for by the writ petitioner Association, on a plain reading of application of the ratio decidendi of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Bank of India v. Mohandas
WA1765/13
-2-
K. [2009(4) SCALE 576].
- 3.In this writ appeal, additional documents have been produced as Annexures A1 and A2 along with I.A.No.361 of 2014. We have allowed that interlocutory application on 14.11.2014.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that after Mohandas's case (supra) was decided by the Honourable Supreme Court of India, an appeal was pending before the Apex Court at the instance of the respondent Vijaya Bank and that was ordered as per Annexure-A1 order whereby that appeal was dismissed as rendered infructuous on the basis of the decision of the Board of Directors of Vijaya Bank, which reads as follows:-
“1. The pay for the purpose of determination of pension shall be as per Bipartite Settlement & Joint Note dated 14.12.1999 (i.e. it should be pre revision pay).
2. Bank to continue its case for a court decision on definition of pay and interest payment.”
WA1765/13
-3-
- 5.Thereafter, the stand now taken is that notwithstanding the decision in Mohandas's case (supra), the members of the appellant Association are entitled to the benefit of the verdict of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered through Annexure-A2 order in the case of employees of Allahabad Bank. In that case, the final order of the Apex Court included an order for payment of interest at 6% per annum from the date of the judgment of the High Court which had granted relief to the employees and which judgment stood affirmed by the Apex Court following the precedent rendered in Mohandas (supra).
- 6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank argued that the eligibility of the employees for interest on the basis of the VRS Scheme and the Pension Regulations, 1995 was pointedly dealt with on the basis of the respective rival contentions in Mohandas's case (supra) and the decision rendered on that point is part of the ratio decidendi of that precedent. It is argued that the question of interest as considered through Annexure-A2 order is on the wholly different premise and, that
WA1765/13
-4-
too, after approving and following the ratio of the decision in Mohandas (supra).
7. It is clear from Annexure A2 that Their Lordships approved the decision in Mohandas (supra) and followed it to dismiss the appeals of the Allahabad Bank and another. As is discernible from the latter part of that judgment, after the dismissal of the appeals by the Banks following the decision in Mohandas (supra), the Apex Court faced an argument through the submissions on behalf of the Banks as also the employees on the question of grant of interest on the amounts found due by the High Court. It was then noted by Their Lordships on the basis of the submissions made by Mr.Bhaskar P. Gupta, learned Senior counsel for the first respondent in Civil Appeal No.2923 of 2008 that the Indian Banks’ Association issued a circular dated 17.08.2009 in conformity with the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Mohandas (supra) and for implementation of that judgment. The Bank, which was involved in Annexure-A2 case, as noted in the penultimate paragraph of Annexure A2 order, did not pay the
WA1765/13
-5-
employees in spite of the aforesaid IBA circular. It was in that context that the Apex Court held that the employees cannot be deprived of the interest as the litigation has been pending in the Apex Court, at the instance of the Bank only. The employees had won their eligibility at the hands of the High Court. It was under such circumstances that grant of interest was made, and not on a ground referable to delay in payment of pension that was issued in terms of the VRS Scheme, which issue stood covered in terms of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Mohandas (supra). It is apposite in this context to quote paragraph Nos.55 & 56 of the judgment in Mohandas's case (supra) as reported in SCALE. That reads as follows:-
“55. Although it has been held by us that the subject employees are entitled to the weightage in terms of Regulation 29(5) of Pension Regulations, 1995, but we are satisfied that any award of interest on unpaid pension would not be in the interest of justice. It is so because different High Courts did not have unanimous judicial opinion on the issue. Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court upheld the contention of the employees with regard to applicability of Regulation 29(5) to the optees who had completed 20 years of service while the
WA1765/13
-6-
Division Bench of the Culcutta High Court and a single Judge of the Kerala High Court took exactly an opposite view. The stance of the banks, although found not meritorious, cannot be said to be totally frivolous. We, accordingly, hold that the subject employees are not entitled to interest on unpaid pension.
56. The result of the foregoing discussion is that the appeals preferred by the banks must fail and are dismissed while the appeals of the employees deserve to be allowed and are allowed accordingly. The respective banks shall now recalculate, within one month from today, the pension payable to the concerned employees by giving them the benefit of Regulation 29(5). However, the employees shall not be entitled to interest on unpaid pension. The pending applications in these appeals stand disposed of. The parties shall bear their own costs.”
- 8.The aforesaid clearly indicates the pointed issue that was deliberated upon. The Apex Court has considered and answered that issue of law through those paragraphs.
9. We hold that the aforesaid, which is part of the ratio decidendi of the precedent in Mohandas's case (supra), applies on all fours and to the exclusion of the reference made to Annexure-A2 order, where the grant of interest was on a ground referable to default
WA1765/13
-7-
by the Bank to give effect to the decision in Mohandas's case (supra), in spite of the circular by the Indian Banks’ Association.
- 10.For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality or error of jurisdiction in the decision of the learned single Judge either on facts or on construction of documents or on application of precedents. This writ appeal, therefore, fails.
In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
(ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE)
jg-22/3
