Syndicate Bank vs Smt. Chitra Raja
2022 Latest Caselaw 12852 Kant

                           1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                       PRESENT

 THE HON'BLE MR.PRASANNA B.VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

                         AND

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

           REVIEW PETITION NO. 111 OF 2020
                          IN
         WRIT APPEAL NO. 4191 OF 2012 (S-RES)


BETWEEN:

SYNDICATE BANK
A BANK CONSTITUTED UNDER THE
CENTRAL ACT 5 OF 1970,
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT MANIPAL
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY
SRI K. SRINIVASA RAO,
GENERAL MANAGER (P)
SYNDICATE BANK,
CORPORATE OFFICE,
GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU,
                                         ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. CHITRA RAJA
W/O SRI V RAJA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
                                 2




EARLIER WORKING AS A CLERK,
SYNDICATE BANK,
VIMANAPURA BRANCH,
BANGALORE.
AND PRESENTLY
RESIDING AT NO.218,
ROYAL HERITAGE,
OLD MADRAS ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 016.
                                                  ... RESPONDENT

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1980 PRAYING TO
REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.01.2020 PASSED BY THE
DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.
4191 OF 2012(S-RES) AND RECONSIDER THE WRIT APPEAL.

     THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits

that the objection raised by the office would be removed during

the course of the day.

3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner

vehemently submits that though the respondent was not entitled

for the benefit awarded to her, the recovery is sought for. This

issue is dealt in detail by the learned Single Judge of this Court

in W.P.No.5912/2009 as well as by the Division Bench of this

Court in W.A.No.4191/2012.

4. On perusal of both the orders, we are unable to find

any reason to entertain the review petition in the limited scope

of the review jurisdiction. It is not even the case of the review

petitioner that the benefit was opted by the respondent by

misrepresentation or suppression of any fact. The Division Bench

of this Court, in the judgment and order dated 21.01.2020

particularly, in paragraph 7 by making reference to Regulation

1(2) of the Syndicate Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations,

1995 (for short, 'the Pension Regulations') observed that the

review petitioner being fully aware of the facts, sanctioned the

annual increments and paid emoluments withholding salary for

the leave period and stated the respondent never

misrepresented. The action of the review petitioner in ordering

recovery, after a lapse of more than 17 years, is unfair, unjust

and unconstitutional. Further, it is observed that the learned

Single Judge after considering the Pension Regulations held that

proviso to Regulation 17 of the Pension Regulations is not in

operation on the date the respondent availed extraordinary leave

and the review petitioner cannot press into service Regulation 17

of the Pension Regulations to exclude the period of 612 days

extraordinary leave availed by the respondent during the year

1986-89.

5. The view taken by the Division Bench was based on

the judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court.

No fault can be found in the observations of the Division Bench.

The review petition being devoid of merits, deserved to be

dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.

6. In view of dismissal of the contempt petition,

pending interlocutory application does not survive for

consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE KPS