Madras High Court
C.R. Chandrasekaran vs Indian Overseas Bank on 6 January, 2021
W.P. No. 15485 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
W.P. No. 15485 of 2008
C.R. Chandrasekaran ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. Indian Overseas Bank,
Represented by its Chairman and
Managing Director,
Central Office,
762, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002.
2. The Competent Authority for
Pension Regulations,
(Deputy General Manager),
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
762, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first and
the second respondents to revise and pay to the petitioner from the date
of his retirement the basic pension on the basis of his average
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 15485 of 2008
emoluments based on the revised scale of pay effective from 01.11.1992
as laid down in regulation 2(d) read with regulation 35(2) of the Indian
Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondents: : Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The prayer sought for in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of
Mandamus directing the respondents to revise and pay to the petitioner
from the date of his retirement the basic pension on the basis of his
average emoluments based on the revised scale of pay effective from
01.11.1992 as laid down in regulation 2(d) read with regulation 35(2) of
the Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995.
2. The petitioner joined service at the respondents Bank on
07.11.1955 and retired from service on 31.01.1993 after rendering
37 years of service. Admittedly, the petitioner was an Officer in Middle
Management Grade Scale III attached to Central Office of the
respondents Bank at Chennai on the date of his retirement. After
retirement, he is getting pension, however in this regard, it is the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 15485 of 2008
grievance of the petitioner that on 23.06.1995, an agreement signed
between the Management of the Bank and the Officers' Organization
which is otherwise called Joint Note. According to the Joint Note, the
pay has been revised along with some other emoluments, HRA,
Dearness Allowances, and Gratuity etc., In order to appreciate the actual
revision, pursuant to the Joint Note dated 23.06.1995, clause 15 of the
said Joint Note can be usefully referred to hereunder:
15) Date of Effect:
For payment of arrears, the benefits under various provisions as above
shall be effective from the dates specified hereunder:
W.E.F.
(i) House Rent Allowance on revised basic pay 01.11.1992
(ii) Scales of Pay and Dearness Allowance 01.07.1993
(iii) City Compensatory Allowance, Provident
Fund, Advance Increment and Fixed 01.11.1993
Personal Allowance
(iv) Gratuity, Medical Aid, Hospitalization
Expenses, Second Stagnation Increment in
Scale III, Professional Qualification 01.11.1994
Allowance, Recovery of House / Furniture
Rent
(v) Categorization of Branches May, 1995
(vi) Halting Allowance 01.06.1995
3. By relying upon this Joint Note, where the pay has been revised
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 15485 of 2008
by implementation of the scheme, with effect from 01.07.1993 and in this
regard, some of the benefits like HRA had been revised with
retrospective effect from 01.11.1992, the petitioner seems to had
requested the Bank to revise his pay scale by implementing the Joint
Note dated 23.06.1995 and accordingly or correspondingly, revise the
pensionery benefits also and to pay the same. Since the said request
having not been considered, the petitioner has approached this Court by
filing the present Writ Petition with the aforesaid prayer.
4. When the case is called today, the petitioner who appeared
party-in-person is not appeared, however, Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, learned
Standing counsel appearing for the respondents Bank has taken this
Court to the import of the Joint Note dated 23.06.1995 and its effect on
its implementation as well as the import of the decision of Karnataka
High Court dated 19.11.2004, which has been heavily relied upon by the
petitioner.
5. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents
would submit that, insofar as the Joint Note is concerned, no doubt, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 15485 of 2008
pay has been revised to the Officers of the Bank and the date of effect
has been mentioned at Clause 15, which is quoted herein above,
according to which, the scale of pay and Dearness Allowances would be
revised from 01.07.1993, however the allowances like HRA, it is revised
from 01.11.1992, of course retrospectively. Insofar as the implementation
of this revision is concerned, since the very scheme itself came into
effect from 01.07.1993, those who were in service on the date of
implementation of the scheme i.e., on 01.07.1993 alone would be entitled
to get the benefits. He would further submit that, since the petitioner
retired from service on 31.01.1993 i.e., well before the effective date of
the revision of pay, the petitioner is not entitled to get any revision of
scale of pay as well as Dearness Allowances, subsequently he will also
not be eligible to get any revised pension as claimed by him.
6. The learned counsel insofar as the judgment of the Karnataka
High Court made in W.P. No. 18298 of 1999 dated 19.11.2004 is
concerned has submitted that, in the said case, the petitioner was not an
officer and he was only a workman. Moreover, it is a crucial factor to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 15485 of 2008
noted that, the said workman retired from service on 31.10.1993 i.e., well
after the scheme came into effect from 01.07.1993.
7. Despite the said employee in that case retired only on
31.10.1993, on that date, the scheme already been implemented, his pay
benefits since was not considered or given. Therefore, he approached the
Court of law, where considering the import of the effect of the scheme
for revision of pay scale and Dearness Allowances and the corresponding
revision of pension which could be implemented from the effective date
of the scheme i.e. from 01.07.1993, the Karnataka High Court has
allowed the Writ Petition.
8. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents
draw a distinction between the facts of that case as well as the facts of the
present case, where, the petitioner admittedly retired on 31.01.1993, i.e.,
well before the scheme came into effect. Therefore, the effects whatever
accrued to the employee or the officer, who is on service on 01.07.1993,
would not be made available to the persons, who already retired like the
petitioner. Therefore, the learned Standing standing counsel would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 15485 of 2008
submit that, the plea raised in this Writ Petition could not be
countenanced, therefore he seeks dismissal of this Writ Petition.
9. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned
Standing counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the
materials placed before this Court.
10. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner was working as an
officer and who admittedly retired on 31.01.1993. The scheme i.e., Joint
Note dated 23.06.1995, through which the petitioner seeks benefits of
revision of his pay and corresponding revision of his pensionery benefits,
came into effect from 01.07.1993. Though certain allowances like HRA
was retrospectively given effect to from 01.11.1992, where the petitioner
is entitled to get any HRA from 01.11.1992, can very well be looked into
by the respondents authorities and if so, they can consider and extend the
benefits.
11. However, insofar as the revision of scale of pay and Dearness
Allowances is concerned, the scheme has came into effect only from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 15485 of 2008
01.07.1993 and before the scheme came into effect, on 31.01.1993 itself,
since the petitioner retired from service, the principles laid down by the
Karnataka High Court in the said W.P. No. 18298 of 1999 in the matter
of A.N.Surkund vs. Canara Bank dated 19.11.2004, would not be made
available or applicable to the petitioner's case. Therefore, as has been
rightly pointed out by the learned Standing counsel appearing for the
respondents, based on the Karnataka High Court judgment cited supra,
the petitioner cannot claim any benefit, as the employee who was the
petitioner in the Karnataka High Court case admittedly retired on
31.10.1993, i.e., well after the scheme came into effect. Once a scheme is
introduced and the effective date of the scheme is also provided, unless
the scheme is changed or it is found to be unlawful or in violation of any
statutory rules and if the scheme is implemented and this implementation
is accepted by the employer or its officer concerned, no exception can be
claimed by any employee for giving extension of the scheme, for those
who are not entitled to the same.
12. Here in the case in hand, since the petitioner retired on
31.10.1993, on the date of implementation i.e., 01.07.1993, of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 15485 of 2008
scheme called 'Joint Note', the petitioner is no more employee of the
Bank. Therefore, the question of giving the benefit of revision scale of
pay and Dearness Allowances to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore,
as a sequel, he would not be entitled to seek any revision in his pension.
Therefore, such a plea now raised by the petitioner cannot be
countenanced.
13. In that view of the matter, as has been discussed above, this
Court has no hesitation to hold that, the petitioner is not entitled to claim
the benefits as sought for in this Writ Petition, which is deserved to be
rejected. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall
be no order as to cost.
06.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
vji
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
vji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P. No. 15485 of 2008
To
1. The Chairman and Managing Director,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
762, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002.
2. The Competent Authority for Pension Regulations,
(Deputy General Manager),
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office,
762, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 002.
W.P. No. 15485 of 2008
06.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
