IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 OP.No. 9724 of 2002(G) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR,KEZHE PUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR OVERBRIDGE,ATTINGAL,TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CANARA BANK,HEAD OFFICE,BANGALORE. 2. CANARA BANK EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE,CANANRA BANK HEAD OFFICE,BANGALORE. ADV. SRI.M.C.SEN (SR.) FOR R1 SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 9724/2002. ----------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 6-6-1987. EXT.P2 ORDER DT. 19-2-1988. EXT.P3 PROCEEDINGS DT. 12-6-1981. EXT.P4 REPRESENTATION DT. 12-2-2001. EXT.P5 JUDGMENT DT. 16-11-2001. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 28-1-2002. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: -------------------------------------- EXT.R1A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTIONS OF VII BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT. EXT.R1B COMMUNICATION DT. 7-1-1987. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 9724 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired from the service of the Canara Bank on 31-1-1998. Prior to joining the Canara Bank, he had 12 years and six months of military service. The petitioner complains that his military service has not been reckoned for the purpose of computation of retirement benefits. After joining the Canara Bank, he passed M.A degree in 1980. As per the service conditions applicable to the petitioner in accordance with settlements, every employee who acquires graduation during his service is entitled to graduation increment and on reaching the maximum in the scale of pay, graduation allowance. The graduation increment was granted to him. However, when it came to the question of graduation allowance, which became due in 1994, the petitioner was denied the same on the ground that although he acquired M.A degree, he did not have a graduation. As per the settlement applicable, the pay of the employees of Canara Bank was revised with effect from 1-11-1997. However, the revised pay was not reckoned for the purpose of computation of retirement benefits due to the petitioner on the ground that for the purpose of pension, the revised pay would be applicable only with effect from 1-4-1998. Detailing the petitioner's grievances in respect of the three claims, the petitioner filed a representation before the Bank. By Ext. P5 judgment, this Court directed the Bank to consider and pass orders on the same. Pursuant thereto, Ext. P6 order has been passed by the Managing Director of the Bank rejecting all the three claims of the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P6 order and seeking the following reliefs: “a) Call for the records leading to Ext. P6 and quash the same by the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction; b) direct the respondents by the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to issue necessary orders for sanctioning the Graduation Allowance to the petitioner with effect from 1994 and disbursing the arrears thereof; c) direct the respondents by the the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to reckon the military service of the petitioner for computing his pension and to revise the petitioner's pension accordingly and disburse the arrears together with interest.” 2. As far as reckoning of military service for the purpose of retirement benefits is concerned, simply because the petitioner had military service, ipso facto he is not entitled to have it reckoned for the purpose of calculation of retirement benefits, unless there is an order, settlement or any other decision of the Bank to reckon that period also for the purpose of retirement benefits in the absence of which the service put in by the petitioner with the Bank alone is liable to be reckoned for retirement benefits. The petitioner has no case that there is such a service condition applicable to the petitioner. That being so, I do not find any merit in the claim for reckoning military service for the purpose of retirement benefits of the petitioner. 3. As far as reckoning of the pay revision effected with effect from 1-11-1997 for the purpose of retirement benefits is concerned, the petitioner has to accept the settlement by which pay revision was effected as a whole. Admittedly, that settlement contained a clause that for the purpose of retirement benefits, the revised pay would be reckoned only with effect from 1-4-1998. The petitioner cannot have the pay revision benefits sans the clause limiting retirement benefits in accordance with revised pay with effect from 1-4-1998. Therefore, I do not find any merit in that claim also. 4. However, as far as graduation allowance is concerned, the rejection does not appear to be correct. The ground on which graduation allowance was rejected was that the petitioner did not have a basic degree before obtaining a post-graduate degree and only graduation would be reckoned for the purpose. The question as to whether a post-graduate degree can be considered for the purpose of graduation increments was considered by this Court in the case of employees of the North Malabar Gramin Bank in W.P(C) No. 25542/2004. In that case, agreeing with the decision of the Bombay High Court in W.P.No. 446/1993 in the case of Mr. Menino Furtado v. State Bank of India and another, a learned Judge held that even if the post-graduation acquired by the petitioner is not subsequent to the acquisition of any degree, in so far as the Bank has no case that M.A degree obtained by the petitioner cannot be equated even with a degree, it has to be held that the petitioner also is entitled to graduation increments from the date of his application. Following that judgment, I had granted similar reliefs to two employees of the South Malabar Gramin Bank in O.P.Nos. 30828 & 32143 of 2002 by judgment dated 18-11-2008. Although in this case, the question is in relation to graduation allowance, the principle applicable is the same. Therefore, following the above judgments, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to graduation allowance from the date when it became due to him. Accordingly, Ext. P6 order to the extent it denies graduation allowance to the petitioner is quashed. The respondents are directed to see that the petitioner is paid graduation allowance from the date when it became due to him. Orders in this regard shall be passed and arrears disbursed to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.