IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that legal entitlements to pension benefits cannot be denied based on procedural arguments when prior judgments have recognized such entitlements, reinforcing the principle of equitable treatment under the law.

JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 for the grant of full pension to the petitioner by reckoning her service for the period from 21.5.1985 to 20.02.1988 with arrears thereof. She has also sought for quashing Ext.P4 to the extent full pension is not sanctioned.

2. Succinctly, the brief facts of the case read as follows:

The petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk on 22.01.1985. However, the resolution by which the petitioner was appointed was rescinded by the Joint Registrar on 15.5.1985. The same was challenged in OP No.6374 of 1985. By Ext.P1 judgment the same was set aside and the Joint Registrar was directed to hear the petitioner and take a fresh decision. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was continuing during the interregnum by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court. Later, the Joint Registrar issued order on 31.12.1987 permitting the petitioner to continue in service and directed the Bank to reinstate the petitioner in service. Accordingly, on 21.2.1988, the petitioner was readmitted to duty by the Bank. However, the petitioner’s request for all service benefits including pay and allowances during the period from 21.5.1985 to 20.2.1988 was not granted. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court in O.P. No.3995 of 1991 and, this Court, by judgment dated 22.6.1999, directed the Joint Registrar to take a fresh decision in this regard. In terms of the said decision, the petitioner was found eligible for the entire benefits. Challenging the said request, the 3rd respondent Bank again approached this Court in O.P. No.29538 of 2000 which resulted in Ext.P3 judgment dated 8.1.2004. The relevant portion of Ext.P3 judgment reads as follows:

“Even though the payment for the period has been computed and earmarked, I think it will be sufficient that the Bank pays 75% of the amount that might have been payable as wages for the period concerned, to the third respondent. This much amount has to be paid to the third respondent within one month from today. However, I make it clear that rest of the benefits and privileges, that might be available because of the reinstatement, including fixation of pay and consequential benefits, will not be affected because of this curtailment. Ext. P13 may be deemed to be modified to this extent alone. The contribution to Provident Fund etc., also are to be made by the Bank on this basis. However, bonus, leave with wages and medical allowance will not be payable for the period.”

3. Pursuant to the judgment, the petitioner was paid 75% of the arrears of wages. It is pertinent to note that, in the aforesaid judgment, there was a categoric finding that the period from 21.5.1985 to 20.2.1988 would be counted for all consequential benefits. However, despite Ext.P3, after the retirement of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P4 order wherein the full pension of the petitioner was not sanctioned. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation before the 2nd respondent. Exts.P11 and P12 representations were also filed before respondents 3 and 4 respectively. When no action was taken, the petitioner approached this Court seeking directions.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 in which it was specifically averred in paragraph No.4 as follows:

“4. These respondents do not dispute the proposition that the period from 21/5/1985 to 20/2/1988 shall also be taken in to consideration while calculating the period of qualifying service of the petitioner for the purpose of arriving at her eligible pension. The bank has remitted the contribution to the pension fund as per the prevailing norms in time and submitted her pension papers to the Board when in advance.”

5. The petitioner had raised a further claim of refund of Rs.40,051/-towards the retirement benefits. However, the said claim of the petitioner towards the aforesaid amount