Karnataka High Court

State Bank Retireees Association vs State Bank Of India on 7 March, 2024

                                                   -1-
                                                                NC: 2024:KHC:9498
                                                             WP No. 6956 of 2023




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

                                               BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 6956 OF 2023 (S-RES)
                   BETWEEN:

                   STATE BANK RETIREEES ASSOCIATION,
                   REPRESENTED BY ITS
                   GENERAL SECRETARY SRI. C.N. PRASAD,
                   S/O LATE SRI. C.R. NARAYAN RAO,
                   R/A NO.14, NANJUNDESHWARA LAYOUT,
                   5TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR,
                   BENGALURU - 560 078.
                   REGISTERED UNDER TRADE UNION ACT, 1926.
                                                                      ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. ABHISHEK PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
                       SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANA GOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

Digitally signed   STATE BANK OF INDIA,
by CHAITHRA A
                   REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 2,
KARNATAKA          RACE COURSE ROAD,
                   MADHAVA NAGAR, GANDHI NAGAR,
                   BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                                                     ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)

                          THIS   WP   IS   FILED   UNDER   ARTICLE   226   OF   THE
                   CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH NOTIFICATION
                   DATED 03.06.2011 AT ANNX-C AS VOID AS THE SAME IS
                                  -2-
                                              NC: 2024:KHC:9498
                                            WP No. 6956 of 2023




VIOLATIVE OF EMPLOYEES PENSION REGULATION, 1995 AND
MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 29.10.1993 AND ETC.,

     THIS     PETITION,    COMING      ON    FOR   PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

The captioned petition is filed by the association

assailing the notification dated 03.06.2011, as per

Annexure-C, whereby the respondent scheduled Bank is

insisting on production of life certificate to enable payment

of pension.

2. This petition is filed by the association of

retirees/pensioners of respondent Bank, questioning the

validity of the impugned notification as per Annexure-C on

the ground that it violates the Bank Employees Pension

Regulations, 1995 and Memorandum of Settlement dated

29.10.1993. The association claims that the respondent

Bank cannot deny the pension on the ground that the

pensioner has to furnish a life certificate. Therefore, it is

contended that stopping of pension without following the

NC: 2024:KHC:9498

principles of natural justice takes away the rights of the

pensioner to receive pension, which is a preexisting right.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating

the grounds urged in the petition, has placed reliance on

the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench in the

case of H.Nagabhushana Rao vs. Under Secretary FFR

Division-WZ Section Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih

Mantralaya and others reported in 2023 SCC Online

Kar 5. Placing reliance on the said judgment, counsel on

record has vehemently argued and persuaded this Court to

quash the impugned notification on the ground that the

same is detrimental to the interest of pensioners who, on

account of ill health, are not in a position to visit the bank

physically and therefore, furnishing a living certificate

virtually takes away the right of the pensioner to seek

pension without any interruption.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

Bank has, however, countered the petitioner's claim.

Justifying the impugned notification, he would contend

NC: 2024:KHC:9498

that the Bank is justified in insisting on production of life

certificate and the very underlying object of insisting life

certificate is to prevent fraud. The Bank, being a principal

employer, is entitled to verify as to whether the pensioner

is alive so as to receive a pension without any interruption.

Therefore, this mandate of insisting on a survival

certificate does not take away the rights of the pensioner.

It is only an added layer of protection to see that

dependent/family members do not enrich themselves by

misusing the pensioner's amount post-death.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for respondent Bank. I have given my

anxious consideration to the law declared by the co-

ordinate Bench in H.Nagabhushana Rao's case.

6. It would be useful to extract the relevant

portions of the judgment. Paragraphs No. 20 and 21 are

extracted, which read as follows:

"20. The officers have displayed apathy to the cause of the petitioner in the peculiar circumstances of the case

NC: 2024:KHC:9498

by not taking the Life Certificate as by then the petitioner was 97 years old and was recipient of pension for a long time under the Scheme. Above all, all these submissions have been made and negatived by the coordinate Bench in the order quoted supra. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to all the arrears along with interest, as the Bank has failed to collect Life Certificate from the hands of the petitioner in terms of the guidelines. The Bank ought to have visited the petitioner and collected the Life Certificate and regulated pension. A caveat, not in every case the Bank is obliged to do so. In cases where there are genuine problems of pensioners who are unable to visit up to the Bank, it is the duty of the Bank officers to visit those persons and take Life Certificate and update them on the system. The pensioners could be septuagenarians, octogenarians, nonagenarians or centenarians like the petitioner. Therefore, this order cannot be construed to be sweeping direction in all cases where the Life Certificate has to be secured by the Bank officers, but in genuine cases, the Bank officers ought to perform their duty in terms of the guidelines so as to avoid unnecessary litigation of the kind that has been generated not once, twice, but three times.

21. Pension, is trite, not a bounty. In a broader significance, it is a measure of socio-economic justice, which inheres economic security, in the fall of life when physical and mental capabilities of a pensioner begins to ebb corresponding the aging process. The raison d'etre for grant of pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to such old age. This can be withheld, curtailed or taken away, only in accordance with law. Ebbing mental prowess and physical incapacity due to age was one of the prime reasons why the certificate could not be submitted in time. This, in the peculiar facts of this case, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed to take away the right of the petitioner for grant of pension, particularly, in the teeth of the guidelines. Therefore, the

NC: 2024:KHC:9498

Union of India and the Bank ought to have paid arrears of pension to the petitioner and not driven the petitioner to yet another round of litigation, third in line, at the age of 102 years. In view of the preceding analysis, the petitioner is held entitled to arrears of pension from 01- 11-2017 to 24-12-2018, coupled with interest and cost of litigation."

7. In the light of guidelines laid down by the

coordinate Bench, this court is of the view that the

notification being a mandate, thereby insisting on life

certificate from the pensioners, is not unreasonable or

arbitrary and the same may not act as an hindrance for

the pensioner to receive a pension without interruption,

subject to production of life certificate. The co-ordinate

Bench, while examining the issue, has rightly held that in

the event a pensioner, on account of ill health, is not in a

position to visit the Bank physically, the Bank officials are

under bounden duty to visit the employees residence and

verify as to whether he is alive or not. The Co-ordinate