IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 27557 of 2005(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P. GOPINATHAN NAIR, KADUKARA HOUSE, AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM-17. BY ADV. MR.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (F & A) PROVIDENT FUND PENSION AND GRATUITY SECTION HEAD OFFICE, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY MR. P.RAMAKRISHNAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.27557/2005-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 27/09/1997. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 17/07/2005. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY R.2. DTD. 08/08/2005. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE STAFF CIRCULAR AND JOINT NOTE DTD. 11/07/1995. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 27557 of 2005 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who retired from the service of the State Bank of Travancore as Chief Development Manager (C&I), Head Office, Thiruvananthapuram on 30.6.1993, preferred this writ petition. It is prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to fix the pension, commutted value of pension, gratuity and grant the arrears of pension, salary etc. due to the petitioner after fixing the scale of pay on the basis of the revision from 1.11.1992 as is clear from Ext.P4 Joint Note and give the arrears with 18% interest. It is also prayed to quash Ext.P3 reply issued by the respondents on his representation. 2. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is legitimately entitled to get the benefit of salary revision implemented in the respondents- Bank WP(C) NO.27557 of 2005 :-2-: with retrospective effect from 1.11.1992. According to the petitioner, on his retirement, when the pension and other allowances were calculated, the respondents failed to consider the revision of pay and other benefits as contemplated by Ext.P4. Thus, aggrieved by the same, he preferred Ext.P1 representation. Ext.P2 is another representation submitted by the petitioner before the respondents. Finally, the respondents-Bank issued Ext.P3 reply in which it is stated that the salary revision in terms of Bank Officers' Wage Revision Settlement clearly spelt out that the revised pay scales were effective from 1.7.1993 and it is further stated that as the petitioner retired from 30.6.1993, he is not entitled for any revision or arrears as per the Joint Note dated 23.6.1995. It is, against such denial of his pensionary benefits, the petitioner approached this court by preferring the above writ petition. WP(C) NO.27557 of 2005 :-3-: 3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying all the contentions and averments taken in the writ petition. According to the bank, the revision of salary was made on the basis of the understanding between the Indian Banks Association and the 3 Officers Associations representing the Officers of Banks viz., All India Banks Confederations, All India Banks Associations and Indian National Bank Officers Congress after discussions held by them, as evidenced by Ext.P4. It is stated that there is no statutory or mandatory obligation imposed on the respondents-Bank to revise the salary scale and other benefits of officers in the Bank. It is also contended that the petitioner cannot be heard to claim any salary revision or other benefits apart from the understanding arrived at between the Indian Banks Association and the Officers Associations as provided in Ext.P4. It is WP(C) NO.27557 of 2005 :-4-: also stated that in Clause 15 of Ext.P4, effective dates of payment of arrears are provided and accordingly, the effective date of revised scales of pay and Dearness Allowance is 1.7.1993 and for City Compensatory Allowance, Provident fund, Advance Increment and fixed personnel allowance is 1.11.1993. It is also admitted that the effective date of payment of gratuity, medical aid etc. is 1.11.1994. It is specifically stated in the counter affidavit that in the face of the above specific terms and conditions in Ext.P4, the petitioner cannot be heard to raise the contention that the bank had ignored the salary revision effected on 1.11.1994 with retrospective effect from 1.11.1992 while determining the petitioner's pension. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the averment that the salary revision was effected with retrospective effect from 1.11.1992, is totally baseless and WP(C) NO.27557 of 2005 :-5-: incorrect. Thus, according to the respondents/the management/Bank, the reliefs sought for in this writ petition are liable to be rejected as the petitioner is not entitled to get the same. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.K.Subashchandra Bose as well as Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, counsel appearing for the respondents/Bank. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that the respondents- Bank are bound to implement the terms and conditions contained in Ext.P4 and as such, the same are implemented in the Bank. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit as sought for. Learned counsel categorically submits that the petitioner is not pressing for an order for the arrears of salary on the basis of the revision of salary with effect from 1.11.1992, in view of para 15 WP(C) NO.27557 of 2005 :-6-: of the Joint Note, though a prayer is incorporated to that effect in the writ petition. In support of the arguments, learned counsel very much placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Subrata Sen and Others v. Union of India and Others [(2001) 8 SCC 71] (para 13), U.P.Raghavendra Acharya and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others [(2006)9 SCC 630] (para 23), State of A.P. and Another v. A.P.Pensioner's Association and Others [(2005)13 SCC 161] (para 28), D.S.Nakara and Others v. Union of India [(1983)1 SCC 305] and also the decision of this Court reported in Syndicate Bank v. Celine Thomas [2005(4) KLT S.N.81 (Case No.110)]. 6. Going by the counter affidavit filed by the respondents-Bank, especially from paragraph 5, it can be seen that the respondents/Bank has also adopted Ext.P4 and implemented the provisions of WP(C) NO.27557 of 2005 :-7-: Ext.P4. The policy and approach of the Bank is discernible from their own words, contained in the counter affidavit runs as follows:- “................ It is respectfully submitted that in Clause 15 of Ext.P4, effective dates of payment of arrears are provided. Accordingly the effective date of revised scales of pay and Dearness Allowance is 1.7.1993 and for City Compensatory Allowance, Provident Fund, Advance Increment and fixed personnel allowance is 1.11.1993. Effective date of payment of gratuity, medical aid etc. is 1.11.1994. In the face of the above specific terms and conditions in Ext.P4, petitioner cannot be heard to raise the contention that the bank had ignored the salary revision effected on 1.11.1994 with retrospective effect from 1.11.1992 while determining the petitioner's pension. The averment that the salary revision was effected with retrospective effect from 1.11.1992 is totally baseless and incorrect. .................” It appears that the Bank is under the impression that the salary revision was effected with effect from 1.7.1993. In this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the Bank has denied the averment of the WP(C) NO.27557 of 2005 :-8-: petitioner that the salary revision was effected with effect from 1.11.1992. But, there is no positive averment or claim as to on which date the revision was given effect in the respondents -Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner has relinquished his claim for arrears with effect from 1.11.1992, especially in the light of Clause 15 to Ext.P4 Joint Note. In the absence of any specific claim by the Bank that the revision of scale of pay was implemented with effect from one particular date, this Court has no other way, but to rely upon the provisions contained in Ext.P4 itself, especially, when the Bank has admitted that they implemented the same. From Ext.P4, it can be seen that there is a specific observation or direction to the effect that “Branches may disburse an adhoc amount equivalent to the net arrears payable for the period November, 1992 to June 1995 and further continue to pay WP(C) NO.27557 of 2005 :-9-: the ad hoc amount equal approximately to the increase in the emoluments, on the basis of month to month calculations of old and revised emoluments from July, 1995 onwards till formalities for amending the regulations have been completed.” It is pertinent to note that under clause 15 of Ext.P4 Joint Note, the cut off date for arrears with respect to scales of pay and dearness allowance is with effect from 1.7.1993. Besides the above, it is relevant to note that in Annexure-I to Ext.P4, there is a statement regarding the salary revision for Officers Combined Fitment Chart for existing Officers as on 1.11.1992. From the above, it is clear that the revision has to be implemented with effect from 1.11.1992. In the present case, the petitioner retired from service on 30.6.1993. Therefore, according to me, the petitioner is entitled to get the revised salary with effect from 1.11.1992 to 30.6.1993. WP(C) NO.27557 of 2005 :-10-: 7. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Syndicate Bank v. Celine Thomas [2005(4) KLT SN 81 (Case No.110)] (in para 13), after considering the authorities including the Supreme Court, has held as follows:- “The 'mini' classification, which is complained of, is a serious one. Even, admittedly by the Banks concerned, though they have entered into Memorandum of Understanding only on 23.6.1995, revised gratuity based on the revised pay had been given to those who retired prior to 23.6.1995, but on or later than 1.11.1994. At the same time, revision of pay scales takes effect from 1.11.1992. In such circumstances, denial of the very same benefits to those who retired between 1.11.1992 to 1.11.1994 amounts to mini classification offending the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ......................” (emphasis added) If that be so, the above observation and finding are strictly applicable in the case of the petitioner also. It is true that the Bank involved in the above reported decision itself is Syndicate Bank. But, the WP(C) NO.27557 of 2005 :-11-: settlement referred in the above decision is none other than Ext.P4. 8. In the absence of any positive averment or contention from the side of the respondents-Bank that the revision was implemented in their Bank on a date other than 1.11.1992 or in the absence of any material to that effect, I have to accept the contention raised by the petitioner, especially in the light of Ext.P4 as also in the light of the decision of this Court referred above. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get revised the salary for the period from 1.11.1992 to 30.6.1993. Consequently, he is entitled to get the revised pensionary benefit and other benefits in terms of Ext.P4, for eg. House Rent Allowance etc.. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the commuted pension and gratuity were paid to the petitioner on the basis of his WP(C) NO.27557 of 2005 :-12-: average pay drawn during the last ten months of the service in the Bank as provided in Section 2(d) of the Regulations. Gratuity has already been paid on the basis of the last drawn salary of the petitioner at the time of his retirement. According to the learned counsel, as the petitioner retired from service on 30.6.1993, his pensionary benefits were calculated on the basis of the salary which he had drawn on his date of retirement and the salary drawn ten months' precedent to his retirement in accordance with the State Bank of Travancore (Employees' Pension) Regulation, 1995. As I have already found that the petitioner is entitled to get revised his salary with effect from 1.11.1992 on the basis of Ext.P4, though he is not entitled to the arrears of salary on such revision, since he had retired on 30.6.1993, before the cut off date for getting arrears connected with revision of scale of pay and dearness allowance. WP(C) NO.27557 of 2005 :-13-: If that be so, consequently, the pensionary benefits also have to be refixed, taking into account the effect of the revision of his salary from 1.11.1992 as held above and also by applying the procedures contemplated by Section 2(d) of the Regulation. In the result, this writ petition is allowed declaring that the petitioner is entitled to get revised pension and other benefits on the basis of the revision with effect from 1.11.1992 as per Ext.P4. The respondents/Bank is directed to take appropriate steps to disburse the benefits to the petitioner in the light of the above declaration and the same shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment which will be produced by the petitioner. V.K.Mohanan, MBS/ Judge WP(C) NO.27557 of 2005 :-14-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------------------- --- WP(C) NO.27557 of 2005 :-15-: Crl.R.P.NO. OF 200 -------------------------------------- ------ J U D G M E N T DATED: -2-2008 WP(C) NO.27557 of 2005 :-16-: