The Deputy Managing Director And ... vs Chimata Sudhakar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4155 Tel

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4155 Tel
Judgement Date : 6 December, 2021

Telangana High Court

The Deputy Managing Director And ... vs Chimata Sudhakar on 6 December, 2021

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, N.Tukaramji

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                   AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                  WRIT APPEAL No.62 of 2019


JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     The present appeal is arising out of an order dated

21.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.23614 of 2002.

     The facts of the case reveal that the respondent

before this Court, a retired bank employee, came up

before this Court stating that his pension and terminal

dues are not being revised keeping in view the Circular

issued by the State Bank of India dated 26.07.1995. The

learned Single Judge, placing reliance upon the Circular

dated 26.07.1995, has allowed the writ petition. The

relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single

Judge is reproduced as under:-

"It is submitted by the petitioner that while he was working as Deputy Manager at State Bank of India, Rajam Branch, Srikakulam, he had applied for voluntary retirement and accordingly he was allowed to retire and he was paid service benefits. It is further submitted by the petitioner that subsequent to his retirement, the Officers' Association of the Banks and Managements of various banks have entered into an agreement in the year 1995 for revision of salary and other emoluments. It is further submitted by the petitioner that as per Point No.3(v) of Circular No.PER.IR.9/95-96, dated 26.7.1995, he is entitled for

revision of salary. Point No.3 (v) of the said circular reads thus:

"the officers who had retired or had been dismissed are ceased to be in the Bank service after 01.11.1992 may be paid arrears on account of salary revision from 01.11.1992 till the date of their retirement/dismissal cessation of service."

The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of submitting number of representations, the respondents are not implementing the orders issued in Circular dated 26.7.1995. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that as per the Joint Note dated 23.6.1995, the Indian Banks Association High Power Committee after discussions with the All India Officers' Organization agreed for revised norms which would come into effect with effect from May, 1993 and since the petitioner retired from service prior to May, 1993, he is not entitled for the said benefits.

This Court having considered the submissions made by the parties is of the considered view that the circular dated 26.7.1995 which was issued after the Joint Note dated 23.6.1995 makes it abundantly clear that the persons who retired after 1.11.1992 are entitled for revision of salary. Since the petitioner retired from service after 1.11.1992, he is entitled for the benefits as claimed by him in terms of Point No.3(v) of circular dated 26.7.1995.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of revision of salary and recalculate pensionary benefits to the petitioner in accordance with circular dated 26.7.1995. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed."

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/Bank

has vehemently argued before this Court that the writ

petition should not have been allowed by the learned

Single Judge as it was preferred after ten years.

In the considered opinion of this Court, payment of

less pension and payment of less salary is a recurring

cause of action and therefore, keeping in view the

judgment delivered in M.R.Gupta v. Union of India and

others1 the question of allowing the writ appeal on the

aforesaid ground does not arise.

The undisputed facts make it very clear that the

State Bank of India has issued the Circular on

26.07.1995, which is on record. The benefit was to be

given to the officers who have attained the age of

superannuation after 01.11.1992. Paragraph 3(v) of the

Circular is reproduced as under:-

"(v) Officers who had retired or had been dismissed or ceased to be in the Bank's service after 1.11.1992 may be paid arrears on account of salary revision from 1.11.1992 till the date of their retirement /dismissal/cessation of service. However, in respect of such officers, who were under pecuniary obligation to the Bank at the time of retirement /dismissal/cessation payment of arrears on account of salary revision should be made after obtaining approval from the Controlling Authority concerned. The PF contributions of the officer payable on account

AIR 1996 SC 669 : (1995) 5 SCC 628

of arrears, and also Bank's contribution payable thereon should be remitted to Local Head Office/Central Account Office, Calcutta in the usual manner. Refund may be made to the officer after completing the usual formalities including obtaining sanction from the Trustees."

The aforesaid Circular certainly makes the

respondent entitled for revision in salary. The Circular

further clarifies along with the charts, the procedure for

revision in pay/pension. The same has not been done in

the case of the respondent.

Learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn

the attention of this Court towards some Discussion Note

(Joint Note), which is also on record and her contention

is that as per the Joint Note, the respondent is not

entitled for revision in pay/pension.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the Circular

was issued only after issuance of the Joint Note. The