IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 3253 of 2000(K) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- VASANTHA SHANKAR, C/O. SHRI. P. GOPIDASAN, P.O. PALLAVUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 688. BY ADV. MR.P.K.ASHOKAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERALA MANAGER, SAMRUDDHI BUILDING, POST BOX NO. 19421, MAROL, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI, PIN – 400 093. ADV. MR.K.THANKAPPAN, ADDL.CGSC MR.V.V.JOSHI, ADDL.CGSC MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 3253 of 2000 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.5253 OF 2000 IN O.P.NO.3253 OF 2000 CLOSED. 17.2.2009. SD/ S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AFORESAID RELEVANT PORTION OF RETULATION 1993. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 8.12.1997 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRMAN, NABARD, MUMBAI. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 11.3.1998 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 26.12.1998 FROM THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD 3.2.1999 FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P. No. 3253 OF 2000 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner’s husband, who was an employee of the respondent bank retired from the service on 31.3.1986. On such retirement, he received his Provident Fund amount on 16.9.1986. Thereafter, he expired on 3.11.1989. As per rule 31 of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Pension Regulations 1993, pension could be given to retired employees provided they refund the Provident Fund contributions made by the bank in respect of that employee with 6% interest. Accordingly, for payment of family pension, the petitioner was directed to refund an amount of Rs.97,549.50/- as the amounts due towards refund of Provident Fund contributions with 6% interest. The petitioner paid that amount and obtained family pension. The petitioner now contends that the recovery of the said amount from the petitioner is illegal and therefore the same should be refunded to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: O.P.No.3253/200 2 “(i) declare clause 31 of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Pension Regulations 1993, making the payment of pension subject to the refunding National Bank's contribution to Provident Fund including interest received from the National Bank together with simple Interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of withdrawal till the date of repayment illegal and invalid. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to refund an amount of Rs.97,905.70/- which was remitted by the petitioner on 7.4.1999”. The petitioner’s contention is that the condition to re-pay the Provident Fund contributions for being eligible for pension is arbitrary and unreasonable. 2. I have considered the contentions of the parties. 3. I am of opinion that after having refunded the Provident Fund contributions as per Clause 31 of the Regulations and having obtained the family pension, the petitioner cannot, thereafter, turn around and challenge the Clause claiming that she is not liable to refund the amount. She cannot have the best of both worlds. She can either have the Provident Fund benefits or the pension. Further she becomes eligible for pension only as per the Regulations and the petitioner cannot claim pension as per the Regulations and O.P.No.3253/200 3 challenge the conditions imposed for becoming eligible for such pension. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd