SRI.SATEESHA HERLE v. UNION OF INDIA

S L V TOWERS, FIRST FLOOR PARVATHI NAGARA BELLARY – 583103 (BY SRI. RESHMA K T, CGC FOR R.1; SRI.T.P.MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R.3; SMT.B.V.VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R.7) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE R-4 TO 7 SINCE JOINING THE BANK TO TILL THE FINAL SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This matter is de-linked from other connected writ petitions.

2. This captioned writ petition is filed by the retired employee of respondent No.3 – Bank aggrieved by the endorsement issued by respondent Nos.5 and 6 as per Annexures-B and G respectively, wherein the employer, while rejecting representation letter dated 24.01.2023, - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:2139 WP No. 6871 of 2023 has declined to look into claim made by the petitioner seeking recovery of amount of Rs.2,53,407/- on the ground that respondent – Bank has collected excess amount while extending pension scheme to the petitioner. The said endorsement issued by respondent No.6 is called in question.

3. Facts leading to the case are as under; The petitioner joined respondent – Bank on

22.07.1981 as an Officer in the erstwhile Tungabhadra Gramin Bank and was promoted to the post of Chief Manager during his service. The petitioner has attained superannuation and was relieved from the service on

31.03.2019. While petitioner was in service, respondent – Bank issued a Circular No.100/2018-19 dated 01.01.2019 with regard to implementation of the pension scheme in the Bank. The Pension Regulations, 2018 introduced by the Bank gave an option to the employee to become a member of the fund with requisite conditions that the employee should transfer the entire - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:2139 WP No. 6871 of 2023 contribution of the Bank along with interest accrued thereon, to the credit of the Fund constituted under Regulation 4 of the Pension Regulations, 2018.

4. The petitioner opted for the scheme and became a member of the Board and refunded final amount received by him from the corpus comprising of Bank’s contribution to the provident fund under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 along with interest accrued thereon.

5. The petitioner was relieved from service on

31.03.2019. The petitioner, who is now getting a pension in terms of the Pension Regulations, 2018, submitted an application on 24.01.2023. In the said representation, the petitioner has claimed that he has approached office of respondent – Bank and has collected information under RTI Act. Placing reliance on the statement issued by respondent - Bank, petitioner claimed that the respondent – Bank while extending benefit of Pension Regulations, - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:2139 WP No. 6871 of 2023 2018, has collected excess amount of Rs.2,53,407/- and hence, representation submitted Annexure – F calling upon the Bank to return the excess amount of Rs.2,53,407/- along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of recovery till the date of payment.

6. Respondent No.6 has issued an endorsement on

01.02.2023 thereby informing the petitioner that the details furnished by the petitioner are found to be incomplete and therefore, the alleged excess amount claimed by the petitioner cannot be considered for want of documents and details regard. The said endorsement is under challenge.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7. Perused the materials on record. - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:2139 WP No. 6871 of 2023

8. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent – Bank has collected excess amount while extending benefit of the Pension Regulations, 2018. The petitioner’s claim that Banker’s Contribution towards provident fund under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 was only to the tune of Rs.4,85,920/- and not an amount of Rs.7,39,327/-.

9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent – Corporation referring materials on record would bring to the notice of this Court that employee has periodically sought release of the contribution made by the employer as well as by the employee. Referring to the Bank Statement issued by respondent Nos.3 and 4, she would point out that the details pertaining to the employees contribution from 1979-80 clearly gives an indication that as on 2018-19, the total contribution by the employer works out to Rs.7,39,327/-. She has also placed reliance on the account statement issued by respondent No.7 – Corporation. Referring to the account statement of the - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:2139 WP No. 6871 of 2023 petitioner, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has withdrawn GPF contribution made by the petitioner as well as by the Bank.

10. Referring to these significant details, it was argued by learned counsel appearing respondent – Corporation that petitioner, in absence of documents to counter these statements, is not entitled to seek refund by alleging that excess amount is recovered by respondent Nos.3 and 4 while extending the Pension Regulation, 2018.

11. On examining materials on record, more particularly, account statement issued by respondent No.7 would place on record by the petitioner and the statement of the Bank maintained since 1979-80 and 2018-19. The entire claim made by the petitioner alleging that excess amount was collected while extending Pension Regulations, 2018 appears to be misconceived and is an after thought. Interestingly, this petition is filed in the - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:2139 WP No. 6871 of 2023 month of March, 2023. The records reveal that the petitioner was relieved from service having attained age of superannuation on 31.03.2019. The petitioner having opted for the pension scheme and having received monthly pension for almost four years has made a feeble attempt alleging that excess amount is collected. The impugned endorsement would not warrant interference as the Bank was justified in declining to entertain representation dated 24.01.2023. Except bald claim in the representation, the representation is not supported by any documents to indicate that respondent – Bank has collected excess amount towards employees contribution. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant any indulgence to the petitioner.

12. At this juncture, however, the petitioner is unable to furnish bank details and documents substantiate his claim. It is open for the petitioner to submit a fresh representation along with all the relevant documents. The order passed by this Court would not - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:2139 WP No. 6871 of 2023 come in the way of the petitioner as the impugned endorsement clearly indicates that the respondent – Bank while issuing endorsement is only insisting to furnish the documents relating to the payment made by the Bank while settling petitioner’s service benefits. With these above observations, the writ petition stands disposed off. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. Two weeks’ time is granted to the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 to file vakalath in the counter. Sd/- JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3