IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 6350 of 2009(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.S.RAJAMANY , S/O.SIVASAILAM AYER AGED 66 YEARS, CURRENTLY RESIDING AT 12/17 NEW SREEVATSAM, RAJALAKSHMI COLONY, T.V.S.NAGAR, COIMBATORE 641025. BY SRI.T.S.RAJAMANY (PARTY-IN-PERSON) ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. (AMUCUS CURIEA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DHANALAKSHMI BANK, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN CORPORATE OFFICE, THRISSUR 680 001 2. DHANALAKSHMI BANK, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,CORPORATE OFFICE, THRISSUR 680 001 . 3. DHANALAKSHMI BANK, REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,CORPORATE OFFICE, THRISSUR 680 001 . BY S.C. SRI. C.K. KARUNAKARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 6350 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard the petitioner who was present in person and Sri. C.K.Karunakaran, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. I have also heard Sri. Elvin Peter P.J. who was appointed as Amicus Curie by this Court. 2. The petitioner is a former employee of the Danalakshmi Bank Ltd. He entered service in the year 1976 as Peon. He was later re-designated as Field Organizer without any change in the scale of pay. While in service, he applied for voluntary retirement on 16-11-2000. The said application was accepted and the petitioner was relieved from the service of the bank on 30-11-2000. At the time of retirement, he was paid the sum of Rs.1,72,399/- being the amount payable under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, Rs.1,06,091.30 as gratuity, Rs.1,363/- towards Provident Fund dues, Rs.6,760/- towards encashment of privilege WPC 6350/09 2 leave and Rs.87,835.44 as commuted value of pension. He is also being paid Rs.4,006/- per mensem as pension under the Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme. The claim made by the petitioner in this writ petition is that he is entitled to further amounts from the bank. The consolidated claim of the petitioner as reflected in Ext.P16 is Rs.12,71,51,000/- with interest, as per Reserve Bank of India norms. 3. The Apex Court has in Federal Bank Ltd. V. Sagar Thomas and others (AIR 2003 SC 4325) held that a writ petition by an employee will not lie against a Scheduled Bank. A similar view has been taken by this Court in C.J. Thomas V. South Indian Bank Ltd. and others (1987(1) KLT 101) and State Bank of India V. Antony (2001 (2) KLT 316). In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court and this Court, I am of the opinion that this writ petition is not maintainable. If the petitioner has any claim against the respondent bank, his remedy is to institute a suit in the competent civil court. Therefore, without WPC 6350/09 3 prejudice to the right of the petitioner to institute a suit, if he is so advised, this writ petition is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.