- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2615 WP No. 104824 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 104824 OF 2024 (S-R) BETWEEN: SRI. NAGAPPA IRASANGAPAP BANAD, S/O IRASANGAPPA AGE. 61 YEARS, PENSIONER H.B.COLONY, SHIGGAVI-581205. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.H. MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE) AND: THE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, BELAGAVI ROAD, DHARWAD-580008. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ANNEXURE- D THE REPLY DATED 19-10-2023 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2615 WP No. 104824 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “A) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Annexure-D the reply dated 19.10.2023 issued by respondent. B) Issue a writ of mandamus to respondent to refund the excess of employee’s share of EPFO recovered as sought in Annexure-C. C) Issue any such other orders or directions as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice in equity.” 2. Learned counsel Shri Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath submits that identical claims made before the Bank by those persons who are alleging that the Bank has collected excess Provident Fund of the employers’ contribution and had sought refund. The Coordinate Bench in W.P. No.5005/2023 has passed the following order: “11. On examining materials on record, more particularly, the account statement issued by respondent No.7 would place on record by the petitioner and the statement of the Bank maintained since 1979-80 and 2019-20. The entire claim made by the petitioner alleging that excess amount was collected while extending Pension - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2615 WP No. 104824 of 2024 Regulations, 2018 appears to be misconceived and is an after thought. Interestingly, this petition is filed in the month of February, 2023. The records reveal that the petitioner was relieved from service having attained age of superannuation on 31.01.2020. The petitioner having opted for the pension scheme and having received monthly pension for almost three years has made a feeble attempt alleging that excess amount is collected. The impugned endorsement would not warrant any interference as the Bank was justified in declining to entertain representation dated 26.12.2022. Except bald claim in the representation, the representation is not supported by any documents to indicate that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have collected excess amount towards employees contribution. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant any indulgence to the petitioner. 12. At this juncture, however, petitioner is unable to furnish bank details and documents to substantiate his claim. It is open for the petitioner to submit a fresh representation along with all the relevant documents. The order passed by this Court would not come in the way of the petitioner as the impugned endorsement clearly indicates that the respondents – Bank while issuing endorsement is only insisting to furnish the documents relating to the payment made by the Bank while settling petitioner’s service benefits.” 3. In the light of the issue standing answered by the Coordinate Bench, the writ petition is rejected on the same lines. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP / CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 194