- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4612 WP No. 10470 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10470 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: N. JANARDHANA RAO MAGAR S/O LATE P NARAYANA RAO MAGAR AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT OM NO.42, 4TH MAIN ANANDA LAYOUT, VEERUPAKSHAPURA VIDYARANYAPURA POST BANGALORE-560097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NISCHAY S.P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGENDRA NAIK R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UCO BANK REP. BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER ZONAL OFFICE, NO.13/22 KEMPE GOWDA ROAD BANGALORE-560009. 2. UCO BANK HEAD OFFICE REP BY MD AND CEO 8TH FLOOR 10, B. T. M SARANI KOLKATA-700001 WEST BENGAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENUGOPAL M S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.03.2019, BEARING NO: HOPSD/PEN/2018-19/25895 AS PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND AND ETC. Digitally signed by MALATHI CHALUVA IYENGAR Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4612 WP No. 10470 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 08.03.2019 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A, whereby respondent No.2 denied full pension on the ground that the petitioner is eligible for pension calculated at 40% of his last drawn salary. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the services of the respondent-Bank on 19.09.1973 and served in various branches. During the course of his service, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. After conducting the enquiry, he was dismissed from service. Challenging the same, he raised a dispute before the Labour Court. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT), Bengaluru. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4612 WP No. 10470 of 2022 After hearing the matter, the CGIT, by its order dated 11.07.2006, modified the dismissal order into compulsory retirement and directed to pay 50% of the backwages. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner as well as the respondent-Bank filed W.P.No.15108/2006 and W.P.No.14823/2006, respectively. This Court, by order dated 24.10.2007, disposed of both the writ petitions and modified the award of the CGIT dated 11.07.2006 by reducing the back wages from 50% to 40%, with continuity of service and other consequential benefits, and in all other respects, the impugned award was left intact. After compulsory retirement, the petitioner opted for the pension scheme under the second option. Pursuant thereto, the respondent-Bank issued the impugned order at Annexure-A fixing the petitioner’s pension. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4612 WP No. 10470 of 2022 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that while fixing the pension, it has been reduced to only 40%, which is contrary to the judgment of this Court. This Court, in W.P.No.15108/2006 and connected matters, ordered payment of back wages only to the extent of 40%, and insofar as pension is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to 100% pension. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an objection/representation vide Annexure-E dated 24.12.2019. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has submitted that before finalizing the petitioner’s pension, the representation will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed, in accordance with law. 5. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the respondents-Bank is directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-E dated 24.12.2019, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4612 WP No. 10470 of 2022 6. If the respondent-Bank comes to the conclusion that the pension fixed vide Annexure-A requires modification, it may issue a modified order and communicate the same to the petitioner. 7. In the event the respondents-Bank, after considering the representation, comes to the conclusion that the representation is liable to be rejected, such order shall also be communicated to the petitioner, forthwith. 8. With that observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 40