- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14455-DB RP No. 22 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY REVIEW PETITION NO. 22 OF 2023 BETWEEN: N. SURESH PRABHU AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O LATE N.R. PRABHU RESIDING AT RAVALAPPA NIVAS OPP.KABETTU PRIMARY SCHOOL SALMARA, KARKALA - 574 101 UDUPI DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAKASH P, ADV.) AND: 1. CORPORATIN BANK A BANK CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT 1980 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION HEAD OFFICE, MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD, PANDESHWAR, MANGALORE - 575 001 (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS UNION BANK OF INDIA W E F 01-04-2020) 2. INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION WORLD TRADE, CENTRE COMPLEX CENTRE-1, 6TH FLOOR, CAFE PARADE, MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.P. MUTHANNA, ADV.) Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14455-DB RP No. 22 of 2023 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYED THAT ANNEXURE A, JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2022 IN W.A. NO. 8134/2012 MAY BE REVIEWED ON ITS MERITS AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS IT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS) This review petition has been filed by one of the respondents in W.A.No.8134/2012, seeking to review the order dated 29.11.2022. 2. Learned Counsel for the review petitioner submits that the judgment was rendered on the basis of a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.R.Prabhakar and others Vs. Canara Bank and Others, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 671. The said decision cannot be made applicable to the petitioner, since admittedly the review petitioner was in service of the 1st respondent-Bank as on 27.04.2010 and therefore, there - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14455-DB RP No. 22 of 2023 existed a legal, statutory and fundamental right in favour of the petitioner to opt for the pension scheme in terms of Memorandum Of Settlement/Joint Note dated 27.04.2010. Whereas in the case of other respondents in the appeals, their resignations were accepted prior to 27.04.2010. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank seeks to submit that the position has been clarified at the hands of the Indian Banks’ Association and Indian Banks’ Association is also of the opinion that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered under the pension scheme. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that if it is admitted that the decision in the case of M.R.Prabhakar could not have been made applicable to the petitioner while considering the writ petition and the subsequent writ appeal, then the review petitioner has made out a case for review. Further, if even - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14455-DB RP No. 22 of 2023 according to the respondents, the Indian Banks’ Association has subsequently clarified the position or that the opinion of the Indian Bans’ Association was not brought to the notice of this Court while considering the writ appeal, even then it is a case for review. 5. In that view of the matter, the review petition is allowed. The order dated 29.11.2022 passed insofar as the review petitioner is concerned, in W.A.No.8134/2012 stands recalled. The writ appeal is restored to its original file. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DL/DN