IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION NO.27494 OF 2022 DATED : 10.02.2026 Between:

L.S.R.Murthy ... Petitioner AND UCO Bank, rep. by Managing Director & CEO, Head Office-I, 10 BTM Sarani, Kolkata-700 001 and 2 others ... Respondents

O R D E R

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to pay pension and commutation of pension to the petitioner in accordance with UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995 and Joint Note dt.27.04.2010 and also to direct the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.5,14,486.54 ps., equivalent to 56% of bank’s contribution to PF which was retained by the respondent bank with interest @ 10% per annum and accordingly rework the pension payable to the petitioner after declaring the calculation sheet dt.03.07.2018 supplied to the petitioner which calculated pension with effect from 27.11.2009 instead of 17.01.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and as not in accordance with the directions of this Court in W.P.No.7541 of 2015 dt.02.03.2017 and also the bank Regulations of

1995 and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner joined the respondent bank in Clerical cadre in the year 2017 and was promoted as Senior Manager in the year 2002. It is stated that a pension scheme was formulated by the bank with effect from 29.09.1995 and therefore, the petitioner was eligible for pension under the said scheme. It is stated that on 01.07.2005, the petitioner was placed under suspension and a charge sheet was issued on 13.03.2006 and the petitioner was dismissed from service on 16.01.2007. It is stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and on further review, vide orders dt.16.04.2010, the Review Authority modified the punishment to one of compulsory retirement. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the petitioner has to be deemed to have compulsorily retired on 16.01.2007 and he is eligible for pension with effect from 17.01.2007. Instead, the respondent bank granted pension with effect from 27.11.2009. The Bipartite settlement signed by member banks of Indian Banks Association and Workmen and Joint Note dt.27.04.2010 signed by the officers organizations extended another option for pension to non-optees who were in service of the bank prior to 29.09.1995 in the case of nationalised banks and 26.03.1996 in the case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India and confirmed to be in service on or after the said date and did not opt for pension earlier, were eligible to exercise their options. Accordingly, on 20.08.2010, the bank issued a circular and the petitioner claims to have opted for pension on 23.09.2010 and the same was also accepted. In the meantime, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.7541 of 2015 was disposed of on 02.03.2017 directing the respondent bank to grant pension and leave encashment to the petitioner in terms of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.33775 of 2014 and batch dt.09.11.2016 reported in 2017 (1) ALD 120 (DB). It is stated that the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.828 of 2017 filed by the bank was dismissed on 22.08.2017 and the petitioner filed C.C.No.1655 of 2017 complaining of disobedience of the order dt.02.03.2017 in W.P.No.7541 of 2015. It is submitted that Review WAMP No.45742 of 2017 in W.A.No.828 of 2017 was filed by the bank and the same was also dismissed and thereafter, the bank filed SLP (C) No.6558 of 2018, but the same was also withdrawn subsequently on 09.04.2018 and it is at this stage that the respondent bank provided for second option vide letters dt.28.03.2018 and 02.04.2018 and the petitioner opted for pension for second time under protest and without prejudice to the option exercised by him on 23.09.2010. It is stated that vide proceedings dt.04.07.2018, the respondent bank (i) granted pension to the pettioner with effect fro