[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Laxman G Byndoor vs The Senior Branch Manager on 6 February, 2026
-1-
RP No. 839 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REVIEW PETITION NO. 839 OF 2022
IN
W.A.NO.1346 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
LAXMAN G BYNDOOR,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
VOLUNTARILY RETIRED STAFF,
E. C. NO. 34159, PPO NO. 65963,
ARADHANA,
NO.20, III MAIN ROAD,
NEAR SHIMOGA ONE,
VIJAYA NAGAR LAYOUT,
SHIMOGA-577 205.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K R GANESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
PRAMILA G V
1. THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER,
Location:
BANK OF BARODA,
HIGH COURT
OF B.H. ROAD,
KARNATAKA SHIMOGA-577 201.
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
BANK OF BARODA, REGIONAL OFFICE,
VIJAYA TOWERS,
M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
(HR OPERATIONS),
-2-
RP No. 839 of 2022
BANK OF BARODA,
HRM DEPT., HEAD OFFICE,
BARODA HOUSE,
MANDVI,
BARODA-390 006.
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
BANK OF BARODA,
BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE,
C-26, G BLOCK,
BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400 051.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T P MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2021
PASSED IN W.A.NO.1346/2021 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE OF EQUITY.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 31ST JANUARY, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
This Review Petition is filed to review the order in Writ
Appeal No.1346/2021. In terms of the said order dated
17.12.2021, the petitioner's Writ Appeal is dismissed.
2. The petitioner had questioned the order dated
10.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.
No.53239/2016.
3. This Court while dismissing the aforementioned writ
appeal and confirming the order passed by the learned Single
Judge has referred to Regulation 38(4) of Bank of Baroda
(Employees') Pension Regulation, 1995 (Regulation, 1995)
applicable to the petitioner (employee) and respondent i.e., the
bank.
4. The petitioner contends that on 01.06.1979 he
joined as a Peon in the respondent-Bank and was promoted in
1984 as a Clerk. Petitioner was removed from service with
effect from 07.09.2000 pursuant to a disciplinary enquiry. The
petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute. The Tribunal in terms of
the award dated 04.10.2007 set-aside the penalty of dismissal
and ordered reinstatement with full backwages and
consequential benefits.
5. The Bank challenged this award in W.P.
No.1604/2008 and vide order dated 06.03.2009 the award
directing full backwages is modified and the respondent Bank
was directed to pay only 50% backwages.
6. On 17.04.2013, petitioner filed application seeking
voluntary retirement on health grounds. Same was accepted
and petitioner retired on 31.12.2013. The petitioner received all
benefits including pension. Pension was calculated by taking
into account last 10 months wages from September, 2011 to
May, 2012 and December, 2013.
7. In terms of the settlement arrived at between the
India Bank Association and the workmen Unions, a wage
revision took place on 25.05.2015 and was given retrospective
effect from 01.11.2012.
8. Petitioner applied for revision of his pension based
on the said settlement. Petitioner also gave an undertaking in
writing that in the event of excess payment, same could be
recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner received certain
amount on 26.08.2016.
9. The Bank issued notice to the petitioner to repay
Rs.2,48,904/- on the premise that said payment is in excess.
Later, the respondent-bank deducted 1/3rd pension amount
each month commencing from September, 2016 till the amount
is recovered. Petitioner contends that such deduction is
impermissible and since he was relieved from 31.12.2013. It is
also urged that the wages for the month of December, 2013
has to be taken into account as he worked for 8 days in
December, 2013.
10. Petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) and Others1. The respondent-bank
opposed the said claim on the premise that between
September, 2011 to May, 2012, the petitioner was
unauthorisedly absent and it was treated as leave without pay.
11. It is urged that the period between September,
2011 to May, 2012 and December, 2013 were erroneously
added though petitioner was unauthorisedly absent.
(2015) 4 SCC 334
12. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not
work from 14.05.2012 to 23.12.2013 except for 8 days in the
month of December, 2013, and the remaining period was
treated as unauthorised absence.
13. The Regulation 38(4) of Regulations, 1995 referred
to above and considered by this Court while dismissing the
appeal and it was also considered by the learned Single Judge
while dismissing the Writ Petition. The said Regulation, 1995
will not enable the employee who has been absent from duty in
the last 10 months of service to claim service benefit by
reckoning the said period. On this count, the Court has held
that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief.
14. The contention raised by the review petitioner that
he had worked for eight days in December 2013 and therefore
the pay of the month of December 2013 is to be reckoned while
calculating his average emoluments, was clearly considered by
the learned Single Judge. It is clear that the review petitioner
was absent from duty from 14.05.2012 to 23.12.2013. As a
matter of fact, his application for Voluntary Retirement filed on
17.04.2003, was accepted and he admittedly retired from
service on 31.12.2013. Therefore, average emoluments for the
purpose of pension could only have been the last ten "months",
when he was in service. A 'month' under the General Clauses
Act, 1897, means a month reckoned according to the British
Calendar. It is the period starting on a date and ending on the
corresponding date in the next month minus one day. It
generally refers to a Calendar month. Therefore, the contention
of the review petitioner cannot be accepted.
15. The review petitioner had obtained the benefits of
pension by undertaking that if any difference is noticed, same
would be refunded by him. In the said circumstances, the
decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v.
Rafiq Masih (White Washer)2 and Bank of Baroda and
Others v. G Palani and Others3, would not be applicable in
the instant case. In any view of the matter, these specific
contentions were taken up before the learned Single Judge as
well as the Division Bench of this Court and had been found
against.
16. In the above view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that no grounds have been made to review the
(2015) 4 SCC 334
CA No.5525/2012 dated 13.02.2018
judgment which has been rendered after considering these
specific contentions raised by the review petitioner.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged
that his contention relating to not paying salary for 62 days
and debiting 62 days from the leave account amounts double
jeopardy is not considered by the Court.
18. It is noticed that the learned Single Judge has not
dealt with the said contention. And, even in the impugned
order, there is no reference to the said contention.
19. It is not clear as to whether the said contention
was pressed while the writ petition was heard by the learned
Single Judge. Nevertheless, we have considered the said
contention.
20. Admittedly, the petitioner was on leave for the
said period. If leave is debited from his account and the said
leave was without pay, it does not amount to double
jeopardy.
21. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no case is
made out pointing error apparent on the face of the record to
call for a review.
22. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
CHS
