WP(C). Nos. 6752 of 2016 & 24613 of 2016 (Sajeev Kumar R & Others v State Bank of Travancore & Indian Banks Association)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 28TH BHADRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.24613 OF 2016(B)** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 SAJEEV KUMAR R, AGED 53 YEARS (FORMERLY CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), RESIDING AT 'PRANAVAM', OPPOSITE OLD R.L.V. MUSIC COLLEGE, WEST NADA, NEAR IRON BRIDGE, THRIPPUNITHURA, PIN - 682 301. 2 MADAN GOPAL SHARMA (FORMERLY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, INDUSTRIAL REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), RESIDING AT 89L, MODEL TOWN, NEAR APPLO SCHOOL, HOSHIARPUR, PUNJAB, PIN - 146 001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SMT.K.N.REMYA SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.V.VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 012, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **WP(C).Nos.6752 & 24613 OF 2016** **2** **2 INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION, WORLD TRADE CENTRE COMPLEX, CENTRE I, 6TH FLOOR, CAFE PARADE, MUMBAI, PIN - 400 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-07-2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).6752/2016(T), THE COURT ON 24-07-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).Nos.6752 & 24613 OF 2016** **3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 28TH BHADRA, 1941** **WP(C).No.6752 OF 2016** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 SEBASTIAN P.S FORMERLY CHIEF MANAGER, CREDIT DEPARTMENT, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) RESIDING AT PALAKEEL HOUSE, POONJAR SOUTH P O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **2 JOSEPH REMIJUS K.E. (FORMERLY MANAGER, CREDIT DEPARTMENT, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) RESIDING AT RUMAH DE ROSE, DUTCH SQUARE, ALAPPUZHA.** **3 JACOB P.JABBU KOSHY (FORMERLY DEPUTY MANAGER (CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) RESIDING AT POLACHIRACKAL HOUSE, KLRA-86, KAILAS LANE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 083.** **4 SATHIANADHAN S.N.** **(FORMERLY MANAGER, CREDIT DEPARTMENT, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) RESIDING AT SRAVANAM, POTTA, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SMT.N.SANTHA** **WP(C).Nos.6752 & 24613 OF 2016** **4** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE**| |---|---| ||**HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,**| ||**PIN-695 012, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING**| ||**DIRECTOR.**| |**2**|**INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION**| ||**WORLD TRADE CENTRE COMPLEX, CENTRE I, 6TH FLOOR,**| ||**CAFE PARADE, MUMBAI, PIN-400 006, REPRESENTED BY**| ||**ITS SECRETARY.**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-07-2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).24613/2016(B), THE COURT ON 24-07-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).Nos.6752 & 24613 OF 2016** **5** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners who have resigned from the service of the State Bank of Travancore (for short 'SBT') have approached this Court. The prayers in W.P.(C) No.6752 of 2016 are as follows: i. call for the records leading to Exts.P2, P3 and P5 to P7 and the letter issued to the 2[nd] petitioner and quash them to the extent objected to in this Writ Petition, by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. ii. declare that the petitioners are entitled to exercise option for joining the existing Pension Scheme in the State Bank of Travancore as provided in Ext.P1 Joint Note and that they are eligible to all pensionary and consequential benefits. iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners to join the existing Pension Scheme for the officers in the service of the State Bank of Travancore, in terms of Ext.P1 Joint Note and grant them all consequential benefits within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the **WP(C).Nos.6752 & 24613 OF 2016** **6** petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent-Bank. 3. It is submitted that the first petitioner in W.P.(C)No.24613 of 2016 had entered service of the Bank on 28.11.1983 and had submitted his resignation on 25.02.2008 as Chief Manager after 24 years 2 months and 28 days of service while, the 2[nd] petitioner had entered service on 07.05.1984 and had submitted his resignation effective from 31.12.2008, after 24 years and 8 months of service and the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.6752 of 2016 have resigned from service on 21.06.2006, 31.01.2005, 31.10.2007 and 10.10.2001 respectively. It is contended that, Regulation 19 of the SBT Officers Service Regulations provided that, retirement age of an officer shall be 60 years. It is stated that, an officer who has attained the age of 50 years or has completed 25 years of service shall be retired from the Bank's service at the discretion of the Executive Committee by giving him three months notice in writing or pay **WP(C).Nos.6752 & 24613 OF 2016** **==> picture [8 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** in lieu thereof. It is stated that, officers who completed 25 years of service may be permitted by the Executive Committee to retire from the Bank's service subject to his giving three months notice in writing. 4. It is stated that, Pension Regulations were introduced in the bank in 1995. Regulation 2(y) of the Pension Regulations provides that, retirement means cessation either on superannuation or on voluntary retirement or on premature retirement before attaining the age of superannuation. Regulation 29 provides for grant of pension on voluntary retirement. It is stated that, the petitioners did not opt to be governed by the Pension Regulations. They did not opt for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme which was offered in the Bank in 2001 and continued in service. It is stated that, while so, a Staff Circular was issued on 31.01.2006 by which an Exit Option scheme was introduced in the Bank. 5. Clause 4 (ii) of the Exit Scheme provided **WP(C).Nos.6752 & 24613 OF 2016** **8** that, pension shall be payable to only those officers who are eligible for the same, in terms of the SBT (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 or the SBT Officers Service Regulations, 1979. It is stated that, thereafter a Joint Note was entered into between the Indian Bank's Association and various Employees Unions and was published on 27.04.2010, by which a fresh option was granted to employees for joining the Existing Pension Scheme. 6. Clause 3(a) of the Joint Note provided that, employees who were in service of the Bank prior to 29.09.1995, in the case of Nationalized Banks and 29.03.1996, in the case of Associate Banks of the State Bank of India and retired after that date and prior to the date of the Joint Note would be granted the benefit of joining the Existing Pension Scheme. It is stated that, the petitioners were in service of the SBT as on 26.03.1996 and when they resigned from the service of the Bank, the second option for joining the Pension Scheme had not been made **WP(C).Nos.6752 & 24613 OF 2016** **9** available. It is therefore contended that the petitioners, who were in service between 26.03.1996 and the date of Ext.P1 i.e. 27.04.2010 are entitled to be granted an option to join the Existing Pension Scheme pursuant to Ext.P1. It is stated that, Exts.P2 and P3 Staff Circulars had been issued by the SBT which have denied the petitioners' right for a fresh option to join the Pension Scheme. It is stated that, the issue of affording a chance to persons who had retired from service prior to 27.04.2010 had been considered and the rejection letters issued by the SBT had been set aside by this Court. The judgment of learned single Judge was subjected to writ appeal by the SBT and by Ext.P4 judgment, the decision was upheld by a Division Bench. It is therefore contended that, the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of the Joint Note and to be granted a further chance to opt for the Pension Scheme and to be granted pension in accordance with their entitlement. **WP(C).Nos.6752 & 24613 OF 2016** **10** 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in _**Asger Ibrahim Amin V. Life Insurance Corporation of**_ _**India**_ [2015 (5) KHC SN 356 (SC)] wherein, it has been held that, resignation tendered after serving for 20 years should be considered as voluntary retirement and a further option for pension in case of such resigned employees is also liable to be considered. The decision of the Apex Court in _**Bank of Baroda and anr vs. G.Palani and ors**_ (Civil Appeal No.5525 of 2015) is also relied upon to contend that, pension is a right and not bounty and taking away of benefits that had accrued with retrospective effect is not permissible under law. 8. A Counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 1[st] respondent. It is contended therein that the provisions of the Pension Scheme abundantly make it clear that persons who resigned from service are not entitled for any pension in terms of the State Bank of Travancore Pension Regulations, 1995. **WP(C).Nos.6752 & 24613 OF 2016** **11** It is stated that, the Officers Regulations specifically provided that resignation would entail forfeiture of past services and that no benefit can be extended to an officer who resigns from service. It is stated that, Ext.P2 and P3 circulars are in accordance with the provisions of Ext.P1 Joint Note and the Regulations and that the petitioners who are resigned employees, who are excluded from receiving pension are not entitled to the grant of the second option to join the scheme which had been notified as early as in 2010. Para 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: “9. As per Regulation 22 of the Pension Regulation, resignation from service of an employee shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently such an employee shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. Moreover, the Pension regulation also does not provide for grant of pension to a resigned employee of the Bank. A resigned employee has been specifically excluded from receiving pension. The various types of pension enumerated that qualify an employee from receiving the pension as provided in the pension **WP(C).Nos.6752 & 24613 OF 2016** **12** regulation are a) superannuation pension, b) pension on voluntary retirement, c) Invalid pension, d) Premature retirement pension and e)compulsory retirement pension. The regulations do not provide for granting pension to a resigned employee. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioners are not sustainable and the same is liable to be rejected. 10. None of the grounds raised by the petitioners are sustainable. The petitioners do not fall within any of the categories mentioned in Ext.P1 Joint note and subsequent circulars. The petitioners are employees who have resigned from the services of State Bank of Travancore and resultantly they have become disqualified from receiving pension as per the pension regulations. The petitioners do not stand an equal footing as those who have retired from the services. The joint note lays down the eligibility criteria for exercising option within the stipulated period. The petitioners admittedly have not exercised any option within the stipulated time and as stated above, they had also resigned from the service and were also not eligible for exercising the option as per the Joint Note. Hence pension regulation do not apply to them and they continued to be governed by the PF Regulations. The allegation of discrimination and violation of fundamental **WP(C).Nos.6752 & 24613 OF 2016** **13** right enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India in Ground C are not sustainable. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is only just and proper that this Honourable Court is pleased to dismiss the above writ petition with costs.” 9. I have considered the contentions advanced. The challenge, essentially is to the Provisions in the Pension Regulations as also the non implementation of the Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 to persons like the petitioners who have resigned from the service of the Bank. The petitioners are admittedly persons, who had resigned as early as on 25.02.2008 and 31.12.2008 respectively. Ext.P1 Joint Note was issued on 27.04.2010. The petitioners have no case that they had approached the respondents seeking the benefit of Ext.P1 immediately after the issuance of the same. 10. Ext.P4 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court considered the case of persons, who had retired from service or had availed the benefit of the Exit Option Scheme and it was found that the **WP(C).Nos.6752 & 24613 OF 2016** **14** Exit Option Scheme was a scheme for voluntary retirement and since persons who retired voluntarily are entitled to pension under the Pension Regulations, the rejection of the claims of the petitioners therein, on the ground that they had exited the service of the Bank under the Exit Option Scheme was not sustainable. **==> picture [413 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** petitioners are persons who had resigned from service in the year 2008. Even after the date of Ext.P1 Joint Note, they raised no claims. It is apparent that, the first claim raised by the petitioners for the fresh option to join the Pension Scheme was after the decision of the Apex court in _**Asger Ibrahim Amin'**_ Case (Supra). No material has been produced before this Court to show that the petitioners had made any claim to be governed by Ext.P1 at the relevant time. 12. The decision in _**Asger Ibrahim Amin'**_ Case (Supra) considered the provision of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 and the LIC Pension Rules **WP(C).Nos.6752 & 24613 OF 2016** **15** of 1995. Construing the provisions of the same, it was held that since the appellant had completed 20 years of qualifying service and had given notice of three months in writing, the resignation should be considered as a voluntary retirement and the LIC, as a model employer, should consider the option of the petitioners for being governed by the Pension Regulations. In the instant case, there is no pleading to the effect that the petitioners had approached the respondents seeking the benefit of Ext.P1, which was issued as early as on 27.04.2010. The petitioners have approached this Court after 11 years of their resignation from service and after 9 years from the date when Ext.P1 became applicable to them, if at all the same would be applicable. 13. I am of the opinion that the long delay in approaching this Court defeats the claim of the petitioners. No reason has been stated in the writ petition justifying the inordinately long delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this **WP(C).Nos.6752 & 24613 OF 2016** **16** Court. Moreover, what is sought for is a declaration that Ext.P1 is applicable to the petitioners. No efforts had been made by the petitioners to approach the respondents seeking a consideration of their claim which, according to me, is a jurisdictional prerequisite for seeking the prayers as sought for in the writ petition. I am of the opinion that, in the absence of any claim raised before the respondents, the prayers sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. ## **Sd/-** ## **ANU SIVARAMAN** ## **JUDGE** mpm **WP(C).Nos.6752 & 24613 OF 2016** **17** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24613/2016** **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT NOTE CONTAINING THE AGREEMENT DATED 27.04.2010.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF CIRCULAR NO.21/2010 DATED 17.09.2010 ISSUED BY THE SBT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.PAD/5/2013 DATED 09.02.2013 ISSUED BY THE SBT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.06.2015 IN W.A.NO.129/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ACTS/PPG/765 DATED 22.12.2010. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ACTS/GEN/208 DATED 13.01.2011. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ACTS/PPG/764 DATED 22.12.2010.** **WP(C).Nos.6752 & 24613 OF 2016** **18** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6752/2016** **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT NOTE CONTAINING THE AGREEMENT DT 27-4-2010.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF CIRCULAR NO.21/2010 DT 17-9-2010 ISSUED BY THE SBT.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.PAD/5/2013 DT 9-2-2013 ISSUED BY THE SBT.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 26-6-2015 IN W.A NO.129/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ACTS/PPG/765 DT 22-12-2010.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ACTS/GEN/208 DT 13-1-2011.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ACTS/PPG/764 DT 22-12-2010.** // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE