- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15543 WP No. 15139 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 15139 OF 2019 (S-R) BETWEEN: GOVINDARAYA SHANBHOGUE S/O GOPALA SHANBHOGUE AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.732/26, 8TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-40. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGENDRA NAIK R., ADVOCATE) AND: UCO BANK (A BANKING COMPANY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES ACQUISITION OF UNDERTAKINGS ACT, 1980) REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER ZONAL OFFICE, NO.13/22, KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE 560009. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.S.VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.ZO/BLR/PSD/2018-19/1442 DATED 29.09.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IN SO FAR AS DENYING THE BENEFIT OF PENSION VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15543 WP No. 15139 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a communication bearing No.ZO/BLR/PSD/2018-19/1442 dated 29.09.2018 addressed by the respondent, by which he was denied the benefit of second option for pension. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to grant pension and leave encashment on he attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2017 and to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payment of pension. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he joined the services of the respondent - Bank on 30.04.1980. The respondent alleged misconduct and suspended him from duty on 06.11.1991, following which, a departmental enquiry was held and he was dismissed from service in terms of an order dated 30.09.1994. The said order was set aside by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Tribunal') in terms of an award in C.R.No.189/1997 dated 16.01.2002. The Tribunal had directed - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15543 WP No. 15139 of 2019 the reinstatement of the petitioner to his original post from the date on which he was dismissed. However, backwages was not ordered. The respondent challenged the said award in W.P.No.2661/2002, which was dismissed on 31.10.2006. The said order was thereafter challenged in W.A.No.34/2007, which too was dismissed. Challenging the same, the respondent approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.2648/2008, which was admitted and renumbered as Civil Appeal No.578/2010. The said Civil Appeal was dismissed in terms of the order dated 23.11.2017. (ii) The petitioner contends that he was entitled for reinstatement and other monetary and service benefits and therefore, he requested the respondent by a letter dated 12.12.2017 to implement the award of the Tribunal. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2017 and therefore, by a letter dated 06.02.2018 requested the respondent to pay pension. The respondent implemented the award passed by the Tribunal and paid arrears of salary and gratuity but did not pay leave encashment and pension benefits. Therefore, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 03.07.2018 requesting the respondent to release the benefits - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15543 WP No. 15139 of 2019 of leave encashment and pension. In response, the respondent informed the petitioner by a letter dated 29.09.2018 that since he was a non-pension optee, a sum of Rs.4,40,060.18 being his contribution to the pension provident fund and a sum of Rs.4,40,060.18 being bank's contribution to the pension provident fund was credited into his savings bank account on 29.09.2018. (iii) The petitioner contends that the Indian Bank Association had entered into a settlement on 29.10.1993 on the issue of introduction of pension scheme to the employees and officers. As per the terms of settlement, pension would be paid to employee in lieu of the management's contribution of provident fund and individual employee will have to give their option for pension before a specified date consenting to refund the management contribution to the pension provident fund created for the purpose. The petitioner contends that those employees, who opted for pension became eligible for pension and those who did not opt for pension continued in the contributory pension provident fund scheme. The petitioner contends that since he was suspended and later dismissed from service, he had no opportunity to exercise his option for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15543 WP No. 15139 of 2019 pension. He contends that issue of providing one more opportunity to the non-optees was raised by the unions and after prolonged negotiations, a settlement was arrived on 27.04.2010. The petitioner contends that in terms of this settlement, he submitted a letter dated 22.10.2018 requesting the respondent to provide him pension. He also submitted a copy of the Circular dated 06.01.2014 issued by the Indian Bank Association, wherein it had advised the Chief Executive of all Public Sector Banks to provide one more option to opt for pension as per settlement dated 27.04.2010 to those employees, who were dismissed/removed but subsequently reinstated due to the decisions of the Court. The petitioner contends that Indian Bank Association had confirmed that the issue was referred to the Ministry of Finance and an affirmative reply was received from Government vide letter No.F.4/8/6/2013-UR dated 17.12.2013 (Annexure - J). The petitioner therefore, contends that even after clear clarification from the competent authorities, the respondent did not provide an opportunity to the petitioner to join pension scheme by taking advantage of the settlement dated 27.04.2010. He also - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15543 WP No. 15139 of 2019 contends that his request for releasing leave encashment benefit was not considered. (iv) The petitioner is therefore, before this Court praying to quash the communication dated 29.09.2018 refusing the benefit of pension on the ground that the petitioner did not opt for pension. He has also sought for a direction to the respondent to grant pension and leave encashment on he attaining the age of superannuation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that in view of the settlement dated 27.04.2010, the petitioner is entitled to now opt for the pension. He submitted that the petitioner would not have any grievance in refunding the bank's contribution to the pension provident fund, if the respondent allows him to opt for the pension. 4. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent who contends that the petitioner while in service had not opted to seek pension and therefore, he was enrolled into the pension provident fund scheme. It is contended that since the petitioner did not opt, he was not granted the benefit of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15543 WP No. 15139 of 2019 pension. It however, did not dispute that a settlement, as stated supra, was arrived at on 27.04.2010. It is contended that since the petitioner did not exercise his option, he was enrolled into the pension provident fund and matching contribution was made by the bank and after the petitioner superannuated from service, the petitioner's contribution as well as the bank's contribution to the pension provident fund was credited into the savings bank account. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. He also contended that the petitioner did not earn any leave and therefore, he was not granted the benefit of leave encashment. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. The petitioner was suspended from service on 06.11.1991 and thereafter, dismissed from service on 30.09.1994. The order of dismissal was set aside by an award passed by the Tribunal dated 16.01.2002, which was again - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15543 WP No. 15139 of 2019 questioned before this Court in W.P.No.2661/2002 and the same was dismissed on 31.10.2006. The same was confirmed in W.A.No.34/2007 and thereafter, in Civil Appeal No.578/2010 on 23.11.2017. Therefore, it is evident that from the year 1991 till the year 2017, the petitioner could not exercise his option for pension. Before the Civil Appeal was disposed off on 23.11.2017, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2017. It is therefore, clear that from the date of his suspension from service till the date he retired, he did not have an opportunity to opt for the pension. Since it is not in dispute that a settlement was arrived at between the management and the employees of the bank on 27.04.2010, following which the Indian Banks Association issued a communication to all Chief Executives of all Public Sector Banks on 06.01.2014, which reads as follows:- "One more option of pension in terms of Settlement dated 27.4.2010-Employees who were dismissed/removed but subsequently reinstated due to the decisions of the Court/Appellate Authority We would like to bring to your notice that the Ministry of Finance, Government of India vide its letter F.No. 4/8/22/2001-IR dated 19.2.2002 (copy - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15543 WP No. 15139 of 2019 enclosed) advised banks to take an appropriate decision with the approval of Bank's Board only in those cases where the officer/employee could not exercise option because he/she stood either dismissed or compulsorily retired as on 29.9.95 but later on got reinstated either due to decision of the court or appellate authority. In case the incumbent has got full wages for the period of absence due to dismissal etc., such period will be counted as qualifying service for pension. In case the incumbent has not got the benefit of full wages, the period of absence will not be considered as qualifying service for pension. All other requests received by the Bank for different reasons should not be accepted under any circumstances. After signing the Settlement/Joint Note dated 27.4.2010 for another option of pension, member banks have referred such cases to IBA and enquired as to whether such employees' pension options can be considered in terms of the Settlement dated 27.4.2010. We had referred the matter to Ministry of Finance and have since received an affirmative reply from the Government. Copy of the letter No.F.4/8/6/2013-IR dated 17.12.2013 is enclosed. Member Banks may kindly take note of the above guidelines and implement the same.” - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15543 WP No. 15139 of 2019 8. Therefore, the respondent was bound to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to opt for the pension. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned communication issued by the respondent refusing the benefit of pension on the ground that the petitioner had not opted for pension, is liable to be set at naught. In view of the above, the impugned communication dated 29.09.2018 addressed by the respondent to the petitioner deserves to be quashed. 9. In so far as the claim for leave encashment benefit is concerned, the Tribunal refused backwages and not other benefits to which the petitioner was entitled to. If the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated into service, he is undoubtedly entitled to the leave encashment as per the prevalent rules of the respondent and hence, there is no reason why the respondent could refuse it. Consequently, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) This writ petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The communication bearing No. ZO/BLR/PSD/2018-19/1442 dated 29.09.2018 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15543 WP No. 15139 of 2019 issued by the respondent to the petitioner is quashed. (iii) The respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to opt for the pension as provided under the settlement dated 27.04.2010, referred supra, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. (iv) The petitioner shall refund the bank's contribution to the pension provident fund, if it is credited into his account within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. (v) If the petitioner exercises his option and also refunds bank's contribution within one month as stated above, the respondent shall grant benefit of arrears of pension and pension to the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter. (vi) The respondent shall also grant the leave encashment to which the petitioner is entitled to, - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15543 WP No. 15139 of 2019 which shall be released to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. (vii) If the respondent fails to grant pension after a period of one month from the date of the petitioner submitting his option and refunds bank's contribution to the pension provident fund, the respondent shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date the respondent fails to pay pension till the date pension is credited into the account of the petitioner, which shall be recovered from the salary of the person/s responsible for the delay. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48