- 1 - RP No. 839 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REVIEW PETITION NO. 839 OF 2022 IN W.A.NO.1346 OF 2021 (S-RES) BETWEEN: LAXMAN G BYNDOOR, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, VOLUNTARILY RETIRED STAFF, E. C. NO. 34159, PPO NO. 65963, ARADHANA, NO.20, III MAIN ROAD, NEAR SHIMOGA ONE, VIJAYA NAGAR LAYOUT, SHIMOGA-577 205. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K R GANESH RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA, B.H. ROAD, SHIMOGA-577 201. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA, REGIONAL OFFICE, VIJAYA TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR OPERATIONS), Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - RP No. 839 of 2022 BANK OF BARODA, HRM DEPT., HEAD OFFICE, BARODA HOUSE, MANDVI, BARODA-390 006. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BANK OF BARODA, BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE, C-26, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400 051. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T P MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2021 PASSED IN W.A.NO.1346/2021 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE OF EQUITY. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 31ST JANUARY, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - RP No. 839 of 2022 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This Review Petition is filed to review the order in Writ Appeal No.1346/2021. In terms of the said order dated 17.12.2021, the petitioner's Writ Appeal is dismissed. 2. The petitioner had questioned the order dated 10.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.53239/2016. 3. This Court while dismissing the aforementioned writ appeal and confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge has referred to Regulation 38(4) of Bank of Baroda (Employees') Pension Regulation, 1995 (Regulation, 1995) applicable to the petitioner (employee) and respondent i.e., the bank. 4. The petitioner contends that on 01.06.1979 he joined as a Peon in the respondent-Bank and was promoted in 1984 as a Clerk. Petitioner was removed from service with effect from 07.09.2000 pursuant to a disciplinary enquiry. The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute. The Tribunal in terms of the award dated 04.10.2007 set-aside the penalty of dismissal - 4 - RP No. 839 of 2022 and ordered reinstatement with full backwages and consequential benefits. 5. The Bank challenged this award in W.P. No.1604/2008 and vide order dated 06.03.2009 the award directing full backwages is modified and the respondent Bank was directed to pay only 50% backwages. 6. On 17.04.2013, petitioner filed application seeking voluntary retirement on health grounds. Same was accepted and petitioner retired on 31.12.2013. The petitioner received all benefits including pension. Pension was calculated by taking into account last 10 months wages from September, 2011 to May, 2012 and December, 2013. 7. In terms of the settlement arrived at between the India Bank Association and the workmen Unions, a wage revision took place on 25.05.2015 and was given retrospective effect from 01.11.2012. 8. Petitioner applied for revision of his pension based on the said settlement. Petitioner also gave an undertaking in writing that in the event of excess payment, same could be - 5 - RP No. 839 of 2022 recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner received certain amount on 26.08.2016. 9. The Bank issued notice to the petitioner to repay Rs.2,48,904/- on the premise that said payment is in excess. Later, the respondent-bank deducted 1/3rd pension amount each month commencing from September, 2016 till the amount is recovered. Petitioner contends that such deduction is impermissible and since he was relieved from 31.12.2013. It is also urged that the wages for the month of December, 2013 has to be taken into account as he worked for 8 days in December, 2013. 10. Petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others1. The respondent-bank opposed the said claim on the premise that between September, 2011 to May, 2012, the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent and it was treated as leave without pay. 11. It is urged that the period between September, 2011 to May, 2012 and December, 2013 were erroneously added though petitioner was unauthorisedly absent. 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 - 6 - RP No. 839 of 2022 12. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not work from 14.05.2012 to 23.12.2013 except for 8 days in the month of December, 2013, and the remaining period was treated as unauthorised absence. 13. The Regulation 38(4) of Regulations, 1995 referred to above and considered by this Court while dismissing the appeal and it was also considered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition. The said Regulation, 1995 will not enable the employee who has been absent from duty in the last 10 months of service to claim service benefit by reckoning the said period. On this count, the Court has held that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief. 14. The contention raised by the review petitioner that he had worked for eight days in December 2013 and therefore the pay of the month of December 2013 is to be reckoned while calculating his average emoluments, was clearly considered by the learned Single Judge. It is clear that the review petitioner was absent from duty from 14.05.2012 to 23.12.2013. As a matter of fact, his application for Voluntary Retirement filed on 17.04.2003, was accepted and he admittedly retired from service on 31.12.2013. Therefore, average emoluments for the - 7 - RP No. 839 of 2022 purpose of pension could only have been the last ten "months", when he was in service. A 'month' under the General Clauses Act, 1897, means a month reckoned according to the British Calendar. It is the period starting on a date and ending on the corresponding date in the next month minus one day. It generally refers to a Calendar month. Therefore, the contention of the review petitioner cannot be accepted. 15. The review petitioner had obtained the benefits of pension by undertaking that if any difference is noticed, same would be refunded by him. In the said circumstances, the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)2 and Bank of Baroda and Others v. G Palani and Others3, would not be applicable in the instant case. In any view of the matter, these specific contentions were taken up before the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court and had been found against. 16. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no grounds have been made to review the 2 (2015) 4 SCC 334 3 CA No.5525/2012 dated 13.02.2018 - 8 - RP No. 839 of 2022 judgment which has been rendered after considering these specific contentions raised by the review petitioner. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that his contention relating to not paying salary for 62 days and debiting 62 days from the leave account amounts double jeopardy is not considered by the Court. 18. It is noticed that the learned Single Judge has not dealt with the said contention. And, even in the impugned order, there is no reference to the said contention. 19. It is not clear as to whether the said contention was pressed while the writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge. Nevertheless, we have considered the said contention. 20. Admittedly, the petitioner was on leave for the said period. If leave is debited from his account and the said leave was without pay, it does not amount to double jeopardy. - 9 - RP No. 839 of 2022 21. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no case is made out pointing error apparent on the face of the record to call for a review. 22. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS