State Bank Of Mysore vs Smt Suma Maheshchandra
2022 Latest Caselaw 998 Kant

                                      W.A No.5837/2013

                          1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                      PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

                        AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

         WRIT APPEAL No.5837 OF 2013 (S-R)

BETWEEN :

STATE BANK OF MYSORE
A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE
STATE BANK OF INDIA
(SUSIDIARY BANKS') ACT, 1959
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
HEAD OFFICE, K.G.ROAD
BANGALORE-560 009                        ... APPELLANT

(BY SHRI. S.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1.     SMT. SUMA MAHESHCHANDRA
       W/O M. MAHESHCHANDRA
       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
       EARLIER WORKING AS AN
       OFFICER IN JUNIOR MANAGEMENT
       GRADE SCLAE-I SINCE
       VOLUNTARILY RETIRED AND
       RESIDING AT VILLA NO.291
       HIMAGIRI MEADOWS, GOTTIGERE
       BANNERGHATTA ROAD
       BANGALORE-560 083
                                               W.A No.5837/2013

                                 2


2.     SMT. VIMALA KUMARI
       W/O LATE JAMES V. PEREIRA
       AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
       EARLIER WORKING AS AN OFFICER
       IN JUNIOR MANAGEMENT
       GRADE SCALE-I, SINCE
       VOLUNTARILY RETIRED AND
       RESIDING AT NO.376
       II FLOOR, 'F' BLOCK
       SAHAKARANAGAR
       BANGALORE-560 092

3.     SMT. H.S. SUMATHI
       W/O P.D. VIJAYA KUMAR
       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
       EARLIER WORKING AS AN
       OFFICER IN JUNIOR MANAGEMENT
       GRADE SCALE-I
       SINCE VOLUNTARILY RETIRED
       AND RESIDING AT NO.253
       III MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJAPET
       BANGALORE-560 018           ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI. ABHISHEK PATIL, ADVOCATE)

       THIS    WRIT    APPEAL    IS   FILED    U/S   4    OF   THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER    PASSED       IN   THE   WRIT   PETITION         NO.30412-
414/2010(S-R) DATED 19/08/2013.


       THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY,    P.S.    DINESH      KUMAR       J,     DELIVERED       THE
FOLLOWING:-
                                              W.A No.5837/2013

                               3


                         JUDGMENT

State Bank of Mysore has filed these appeals

challenging the order dated August 19, 2013

passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.

Nos.30412-30414/2010.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are

referred as per their status in the writ petition.

3. We have heard Shri. S.V. Narasimhan,

learned Advocate for appellant and Shri. Abhishek

Patil, learned Advocate for respondents.

4. Brief facts of the case are, writ

petitioners were employees of State Bank of

Mysore. The Bank issued a Circular dated June 24,

2006 called as 'Exit Option Scheme'. Petitioners

availed the said Scheme and took Voluntary

retirement. According to the petitioners, they were

entitled for addition of five years to the qualifying

service in terms of Regulation 29(5) of the State W.A No.5837/2013

Bank of Mysore Employees' (Pension) Regulations,

1995, while computing the pension. This benefit

was not extended to them. Hence, they filed the

instant writ petitions seeking a direction against the

Bank to pay the terminal benefits by adding five

years to their qualifying service. Petitions were

resisted by the Bank. By the impugned order, the

Hon'ble Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions.

Hence, these appeals.

5. Shri. S.V. Narasimhan, for appellants

submitted that in order to downsize the employees'

strength, the Bank introduced the 'Exit Option

Scheme' in the year 2006. The Scheme is

independent of the Regulations. Writ petitioners

have voluntarily sought the 'Exit Option' as per the

Scheme. Having opted for the Scheme, they cannot

be permitted to turn around and seek benefit under

the Regulations also.

W.A No.5837/2013

6. Shri. Narasimhan further submitted that

the Hon'ble Single Judge has relied upon the

Division Bench Judgment in W.A. No. 4269/2011

decided on March 8, 20121. The ratio in the said

judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case

because the Hon'ble Single Judge has held that

Regulation 29 of the Regulations does not draw any

distinction between a 'Voluntary Retirement

Scheme' and other Schemes. This finding is

unsustainable in law because, the Schemes are

evolved from time to time, keeping in view the

exigencies in service and also the development of

the Bank.

7. Shri. Abhishek argued supporting the

impugned order.

8. We have carefully considered rival

contentions and perused the records.

Vijaya Bank Vs. Smt. Suvasini S. Shetty - ILR 2012 KAR 2745 W.A No.5837/2013

9. It is not in dispute that the writ

petitioners have sought for voluntary retirement

under the 'Exit Option Scheme'. Their only

grievance is, five years of service is not added to

their qualifying years of service, while calculating

the retirement benefits. The Hon'ble Single Judge

has allowed the writ petition, placing reliance on

para 24 in W.A. No.4269/2011. It is held therein

that the Officers who had availed of 'VRS 2000'

were entitled to addition of five years of notional

service while calculating the total length of service.

The Division Bench has also referred to the

judgment in the case of one Mohandas2. Thus, the

Division Bench has taken a consistent view that

employees who opt for VRS are entitled for addition

of five years of notional service for computation of

retirement benefits. We are in respectful agreement

with the said view.

Bank of India & Another Vs. K. Mohandas & Others

- (2009) 5 SCC 313 W.A No.5837/2013

10. In view of the above, this appeal is

devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SPS

.