Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
N. KUMAR & B.S. INDRAKALA, JJ.
B.S. Manjunath – Complainant
Versus
V. Kannan, Chairman & Managing Director Vijaya Bank – Accused
CCC No. 392 of 2014 (CIVIL)
Decided On : 10.3.2014
Contempt - Pension Benefit - Writ Petition - Pension Regulations - Resignation vs Retirement - [PENSION BENEFIT] - [CONTEMPT] - [Banking Regulations of 1995, Regulation 2(y), Regulation 3(1)(a), UCO Bank and others Vs. Sanwar Mal (AIR 2004 SC 2135), M.R. Prabakar Vs. Canara Bank and others (2012) 9 SCC 681, Purnendu Mukyopadhyaya vs. V.K. Kappor (2008) 14 SCC 403, J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar (1996) 6 SCC 291, Vijay Singh vs. Mittanlal Hindoliya (1997) 1 SCC 258] - The court discussed the interpretation of pension regulations, distinguishing between resignation and retirement, and the applicability of previous judgments in granting pension benefits. The court emphasized that the law declared by the Apex Court regarding the distinction between resignation and retirement must be considered in granting pension benefits. The direction to pay pension was confined to a specific case and did not extend to all resigned employees. The court held that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated for disobedience of the court order as the law declared by the Apex Court must be considered in the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The contempt petition was filed alleging disobedience of a previous court order regarding the extension of pension benefits to the complainant. The respondents contended that the law declared by the Apex Court did not entitle the complainant to the pension benefit as he had resigned from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the direction to pay pension was specific to a particular case and did not extend to all resigned employees. The court held that the law declared by the Apex Court regarding the distinction between resignation and retirement must be considered in granting pension benefits. The court concluded that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated for disobedience of the court order as the law declared by the Apex Court must be considered in the decision.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of pension regulations, the distinction between resignation and retirement, and the applicability of previous judgments in granting pension benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the law declared by the Apex Court regarding the distinction between resignation and retirement must be considered in granting pension benefits. The direction to pay pension was confined to a specific case and did not extend to all resigned employees. The court emphasized that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated for disobedience of the court order as the law declared by the Apex Court must be considered in the decision.
Final Decision: The court concluded that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated for disobedience of the court order as the law declared by the Apex Court must be considered in the decision.
1. This contempt petition is filed complaining of disobedience of the order dated 11.07.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 34625 of 2010.
2. The grievance of the complainant is that, the persons who are similarly placed as that of the complainant have been extended the benefit, whereas the complainant has been discriminated.
3. The respondents have filed their counter contending that, the direction is to consider the representation of the complainant in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 24158160 of 2011 and in accordance with law. The law declared by the Apex Court would not extend the benefit to the complainant as claimed by him and therefore in law, he is not entitled to the said benefit and they have given an endorsement to that effect.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The direction which was issued by this Court reads as under:
“No prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if they are directed to consider the petitioner’s representation at Annexure-A and letter at Annexure-C, keeping in view the order of this Court in W.P. Nos. 24158160 of 2011 and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
Therefore, we have to see, what is the direction issued in W.P. Nos. 2415824160 of 2011. In the said proceedings, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that, merely because, the petitioners have resigned from the service, is not a ground to deny the pension.
Therefore, impugned clause No.7 was quashed and the following order was passed:
I. Writ Petitions are hereby allowed.
II. The impugned clause No. 7 of circular No. 10191 dated 07.09.2010 as per Annexures-M to M7 are hereby quashed.
III. Petitioners are entitled for pension as per the pension regulations of the respondent bank.
IV. Respondents to calculate and to extend the benefit of pension to the petitioners.
5. The said order was challenged in appeal in Writ Appeal Nos. 29562977 of 2012, wherein the order of the learned Single Judge was affirmed. Aggrieved by the said order, a review petition came to be filed which was also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by both the orders, a Special Leave Petition was preferred to the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) CC No. 2081120832 of 2013 where, the Apex Court on 06.12.2013 passed the following order:
“Delay condoned.
The special leave petitions are dismissed.
The question of law is kept open.”
6. Thereafter, the respondents considered the representation of the complainant and issued an endorsement setting out the aforesaid facts to the effect that, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of M.P. Prabhakarn and others Vs. Canara Bank and others, which is decided on 03.10.2012, the complainant is not entitled to the benefit of pension as he has resigned from service. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.
7. The respondents have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in appeal. In appeal, the Division Bench held that, ‘as the impugned direction was to consider the said representation in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than six weeks’. The respondents appear to have taken up one after the other proceedings before the Court without any apparent cause of action and the appeals were filed with an application for condoning the delay of 489 days in preferring the appeals. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay and the appeals came to be dismissed.
8. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that, the direction issued is to consider the representation in terms of the order passed earlier which went up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court did not interfere with the order on merits but made it clear that, the question of law is kept open. The direction to pay pension is to be confined to that case alone. It cannot be read as law declared by the Apex Court, as the question of law is kept open. Therefore, the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
