IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

WRIT PETITION NO.55068/2017 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

MR. N RAMESHA

S/O LATE N NAGARAJA RAO

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

R/AT NO.860, NARASAPURA ROAD

VEMGAL POST

KOLAR DISTRICT-563157.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI H SUNITL KUMAR, ADV.)

AND:

1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

CANARA BANK

NO.112, J.C.ROAD

BANGALORE-560002.

2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER

CANARA BANK

NO.112, J.C.ROAD

BANGALORE-560002.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI T R K PRASAD, ADV. FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

LETTER

DATED

12.09.2017

ISSUED

BY

THE

R2

VIDE

ANNEXURE-B AS ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND

ETC.

2

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN 8B9 GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

The petitioner, who is compulsorily retired by way of

punishment is before this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash

Annexure-B/communication dated 12.09.2017 wherein the

petitioner is communicated that, since the petitioner is not

having minimum qualifying service, he is not eligible for

pensionary benefits and also for a writ of mandamus to

consider

the

representation

of

the

petitioner

dated

29.08.2017 vide Annexure-A and grant pension to the

petitioner.

2.

Heard learned counsel Sri.H.Sunil Kumar for petitioner

and learned counsel Sri.T.R.K.Prasad for respondents.

Perused the writ petition papers.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Sunil Kumar

would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as

3

daily wager in the year 1983 and his services were regularized

into respondent-Bank by order dated 09.09.1997 (Annexure-

R1). Thereafter, while the petitioner was working as sub-staff

of the respondent-Bank, a charge sheet dated 21.10.2006

(Annexure-R2)

was

issued

to

the

petitioner

alleging

misconduct. After enquiry, by order dated 30.07.2007, the

petitioner was imposed with punishment of compulsory

retirement. The same was taken up in appeal and the

appellate authority also confirmed the order of punishment of

compulsory retirement. Against the order of punishment and

appellate order, the petitioner preferred writ petition and this

Court, by order dated 28.03.2014 dismissed the writ petition

against which, the petitioner preferred writ appeal, which also

came to be dismissed by order dated 01.09.2015. Thus, the

order of punishment of compulsory retirement has become

final.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

the employees of respondent-Canara Bank, on retirement are

4

governed by Canara Bank Employees9 (Pension) Regulations,

1995 (for short <1995 Regulations=) for their pension and

retirement benefits. Learned counsel inviting attention of this

Court to Regulation 14 of 1995 Regulations submits that

minimum of 10 years service would be required to get

retirement benefits as well as pensionary benefits. Further,

learned counsel invites attention of this Court to Regulation

27 and submits that the service rendered on scale wages and

on a permanent part-time basis would count for qualifying

service to get pension or retirement benefits. It is submitted

that the petitioner had completed 9 years 10 months and he

was short of 2 months to get qualifying service for pension.

Learned counsel relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex

Court reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516 in the case of PREM

SINGH v/s STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS and

another decision reported in (2010)4 SCC 317 in the case of

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER v/s

NARATA SINGH AND ANOTHER would contend that the

petitioner would be entitled to count his daily wage service for

5

the purpose of adding qualifying service and if daily wage

service is counted, he would become eligible to receive

pe