1. Can Exhibit-A3 be treated as an order passed by a higher authority as mentioned in the Proviso to Rule 31 of the Federal Bank (Employees') Pension Rules, 1995, by exercising the discretion conferred on him?

2. Has the Civil Court jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature?

3. What should be the guidelines to exercise the discretion under Rule 31 of the Federal Bank (Employees') Pension Rules, 1995?

2. The plaintiff was appointed as a Clerk in the Federal Bank Limited in the year 1978. He continued as such till 2003, when he was promoted as an officer. Thereafter, he was working as the Assistant Manager of the Bank. While so, he had allegedly committed criminal breach of trust by unlawfully and illegally crediting an amount of Rs. 49,100/- in his mother-in-law's account at the Bank. Over and above it, he had procured a furniture loan from the Bank to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-, and instead of making that payment directly to the person from whom the furniture were procured, he credited the amount to his mother-in-law's account. The said amounts were later withdrawn by the mother-in-law. He was served with memo of charges detailing the aforesaid two charges. He admitted the said transactions and consequently, he was found guilty in the enquiry and he was dismissed from the service of the Bank.

3. As per the Federal Bank Limited (Officers') Service Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2002 Rules’), he had opted for Pension Scheme instead of Provident Fund Scheme. Therefore, the employer's contribution to the Provident Fund Scheme would automatically go to the Pension Scheme. If an officer, who opts to continue in the Provident Fund Scheme, even if dismissed for misconduct, fraud or any such similar cause, he is entitled to the employer's contribution after deducting the actual loss, if any, suffered by the Bank at the instance of such an officer.

4. As per the rules of the Federal Bank (Employees') Pension Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1995 Rules’), if an employee, who has opted to be governed by 1995 Rules, his dismissal, removal or termination from service, shall forfeit his pension. At the same time, as per the proviso to Rule 31(1) of 1995 Rules,

"the authority higher than the authority competent to dismiss or remove or terminate him from service may, if

(i) such dismissal, removal or termination is on or after the 1st day of November, 1993; and

(ii) the case is deserving of special consideration,

sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the pension, which would have been admissible to him on the basis of the quantifying service rendered up to the date of his dismissal, removal or termination."

Rule 31(2) says:

"The compassionate allowance sanctioned under the Proviso to Sub-rule (1) shall not be less than the amount of minimum pension payable under Rule 36 of the Rules 1995."

5. Based on the proviso to Section 31(1) of the Rules 1995, the plaintiff preferred Exhibit-A2 representation dated 22.12.2008 before the Managing Director and CEO, Federal Bank Limited, seeking a humanitarian approach by highlighting his sad predicaments, thereby seeking compassionate allowance as provided under Rule 31 of 1995 Rules. Thereupon, the Additional General Manager (P & HRD) of the Federal Bank Limited issued Exhibit-A3 dated 03.03.2009 to the plaintiff, which reads as follows:

"This is to inform you that after a careful scrutiny of the request submitted by you, competent authority has declined your request for granting compassionate allowance."

6. Dissatisfied with the way in which the matter was dealt with by the employer through Exhibit-A3, the plaintiff has approached the Munsiff's Court, Aluva, through O.S.No.434 of 2010, by way of a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant Bank to grant compassionate allowance to the plaintiff as provided under Rule 31 of 1995 Rules. The trial court, by holding that a judicial review is not possible in the matter and further that as per Rule 31 of 1995