Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
K.T. MURALEE MOHANAN, PUSHPAM FRANKLIN – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA, UNION BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background and facts of the pension dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the legality of regulation 41(5). (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on established precedents. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. final determination on the 15-year recovery period. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This intra-court appeal is filed by the petitioners in W.P(C)
No.39729 of 2024, challenging the judgment dated 17.02.2025, dismissing their writ petition.
2. The writ petition was filed by the appellants/petitioners seeking the following reliefs:
“i. Declare that the fixation of “15 years” time period for restoration of pension is illegal.
ii. Declare that the period of recovery of commuted amount shall not exceed the actual period for such recovery at the rate of one-third of the basic pension amount.
iii. To quash Regulation 41(5) of the Corporation Bank(Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995.
iv. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent bank to stop recovering from the monthly pension of petitioners towards repayment of commuted value of pension once the commutation amount is paid back in full.
v. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent bank to refund the amount r
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
