LAWS(KER)-2025-4-37

GENERAL MANAGER Vs. V.T.RADHAKRISHNAN

Decided On April 01, 2025
GENERAL MANAGER Appellant
V/S
V.T.Radhakrishnan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an intra-court appeal filed under Sec. 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the respondents in W.P.(C)No.20291 of 2011 challenging the judgment dtd. 2/2/2015 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed directing the 2nd appellant Bank to admit the respondent as a member of the Pension Scheme and disburse consequential benefits to him with effect from 27/4/2010. The respondent was further directed to refund the entire amount as contemplated under Ext.P5 to the Bank within six weeks.

(2.) The writ petition was one filed by the respondent herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) The respondent joined the service of the 2nd appellant Bank on 1/9/1975 in one of its branches at Calicut. On 30/4/2010, he submitted Ext.P2 resignation letter to the Bank requesting to relieve him with effect from 31/5/2010, due to his ill-health. By Ext.P3 letter dtd. 28/5/2010 his resignation was accepted by the 3rd appellant Deputy General Manager of the Bank. On the basis of Exts.P2 and P3, the respondent received all his service benefits from the Bank. Meanwhile, the 9th bipartite settlement dtd. 27/4/2010 was signed between the Indian Banks' Association and Workmen's Union and the same was circulated by Ext.P5 circular dtd. 7/9/2010 of the Bank. As per paragraph No.1 of Ext.P5, the employees who were in service of the Bank prior to 29th day of September 1995 and continue to be in the service of the Bank as on 27th day of April, 2010 were entitled to give an option in writing within 60 days from the date of the said Circular to become a member of the Pension Fund. The respondent exercised his option in writing on 13/9/2010 and he undertook to refund the service benefits received by him. But, by Ext.P7 letter dtd. 3/11/2010, the 3rd appellant rejected his request. Thereafter, the respondent submitted Ext.P8 representation dtd. 14/2/2011 to the 2nd appellant to treat Ext.P2 request as the one made for voluntary retirement. Since no action was followed in Ext.P8 representation the respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.6992 of 2011 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment dtd. 7/3/2011 directing consideration of Ext.P8 representation. Pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment, the 1st appellant offered a personal hearing to the respondent and thereafter by Ext.P11 order dtd. 25/5/2011, Ext.P8 representation was rejected. Contending that the respondent made Ext.P2 with an intention to give him voluntary retirement and not as a resignation, he filed the W.P.(C)No.20291 of 2011 before this Court. By the impugned judgment dtd. 2/2/2015, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition directing the 2nd appellant to extend the benefit of the Pension Scheme to the respondent, holding that no employee after putting more than 35 years of service will be interested to forfeit his past service