Karnataka High Court
P. J. Joy vs Government Of India on 25 May, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashok S.Kinagi
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT APPEAL NO.321 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
P.J.JOY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O LATE P V JOSEPH,
R/AT NO.94, 'ANUGRAHA'
4TH A CROSS, 10TH MAIN,
NANDANAM COLONY,
HORAMAVU ROAD,
BANASWADI, BENGALURU
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJITHA.T.O., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES,
NORTH BLOCK, RAISINA HILL,
NEW DELHI-110001
2. CANARA BANK
A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE
BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION &
TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO.112,
J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU -560002
3. STATE BANK OF INDIA
CADRE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT,
-2-
CORPORATE CENTRE,
STATE BANK BHAVAN,
MADAM CAMA ROAD,
BANGALORE
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND QUASH AND SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.42653/2017 (S-RES), DATED
14.12.2021 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION
NO.42653/2017.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. In view of the order passed by the Apex Court
dated 10.01.2022 in Misc.No.21/2022 filed in Suo Motu Writ
Petition (c) No.3/2020, the delay in filing the appeal stands
condoned.
3. This intra-Court appeal has been filed
challenging the judgment and order dated 14.12.2021
passed in W.P.No.42653/2017 (S-RES) whereby, the writ
petition preferred by the appellant/petitioner has been
dismissed on merit.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner
submits that the writ Court has failed to appreciate that the
appellant/petitioner was drawing higher salary in the State
Bank of India at the time of superannuation and as such, as
per Regulation 10 of the Service Regulations, his
pensionary benefits should have been decided on the basis
of last drawn salary.
5. We have considered the submissions and gone
through the record.
6. Admittedly, the appellant/petitioner was
working on deputation in the State Bank of India on the
post of Chief Vigilance Officer. The terms and conditions for
appointment as Chief Vigilance Officer indicate that during
the period of deputation, the contribution towards leave,
salary and contributory Provident Fund only will be borne
by the State Bank of India. However, the
superannuation/terminal benefits and all other such
benefits which are available at the time of retirement will
not be paid/made available by the State Bank of India.
Such benefits may be made available by the parent bank
that is, Canara Bank as per its 'Officers' Service
Regulations'.
7. The appellant/petitioner had made a
representation claiming the pensionary benefits on the
basis of the last drawn salary which was decided by
respondent No.2-Bank by the order dated 03.02.2017. In
the said order, it was clearly indicated that the
appellant/petitioner had drawn higher emoluments from the
State Bank of India as per their Regulations on account of
his working on deputation as Chief Vigilance Officer in the
said Bank. The pensionary benefits have been calculated as
per the Canara Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1979
which are to be applicable in the case of the
appellant/petitioner. The appellant/petitioner would not be
entitled to claim higher pensionary benefits on the basis of
the salary which he has drawn while working on deputation
in the State Bank of India.
8. The learned Single Judge has rightly come to
conclusion that the appellant/petitioner, on deputation as
Chief Vigilance Officer at the State Bank of India, on his
consent, had accepted the terms and conditions of the
deputation which are noted in the order of appointment
dated 09.01.2012. When the appellant/petitioner had
accepted the terms and conditions wherein, it is indicated
that the borrowing bank would not contribute towards the
appellant/petitioner's retirement benefits, the
appellant/petitioner would be entitled for the benefits as
available to him in his parent Bank. The writ Court has
come to conclusion that there is no infirmity or illegality in
the order impugned and the writ petition, as such, being
devoid of merit, is liable to be rejected.
9. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the
view taken by the learned Single Judge.
10. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at
the admission stage.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VM
