M. Manoharan vs Syndicate Bank, Manipal and Another

A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.—This writ petition is filed praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned communication dated 25-4-1997, produced as Annexure-M to the writ petition.

The petitioner joined the services of the first respondent-Bank on 29-9-1975. On 29-10-1993 the first respondent-Bank entered into a settlement with its officers whereunder pension was introduced as a second retiral benefit in lieu of contributory provident fund. In pursuance of the said settlement the bank issued circular dated 7-6-1994 calling upon the officers to submit their option. The petitioner exercised his option to accept the pension in terms of his letter dated 30-9-1994. Certain changes were brought out in the pension scheme and consequent upon the changes introduced to the pension scheme, the Bank issued another circular dated 4-11-1995 (Annexure-D) permitting the officers to revoke the option exercised by them previously, if they so desired, on or before 29-11-1995 and the petitioner exercised his option and revoked his earlier pension option vide letter dated 27-11-1995.

By a circular dated 3-7-1996 the Bank clarified that encashment of privilege leave may be permitted to officers and workmen employees retiring voluntarily under pension regulations. As voluntary retirement under the pension regulations with encashment of privilege leave was more beneficial, the petitioner gave a letter for withdrawing the option exercised by him on 27-11-1995 and sought for the pensionary scheme. The Bank refused to act on his letter to revoke the earlier option exercised by the petitioner. The Bank also declined the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement under pension regulations. Subsequently, on 16-6-1997 the petitioner resigned the post of officer held by him in the Bank. His resignation was accepted as per the letter dated 1-7-1997 and he was relieved from the services of the Bank with effect from 5-7-1997. The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the Bank to permit him to take voluntary retirement with pension under the pension regulations. Hence, the present petition.

I have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.

The entitlement of the petitioner to the relief sought by him in this petition is directly linked to the syndicate Bank (Employees'') Pension Regulations, 1995 which came to be adopted by the Bank by its circular dated 4-11-1995 (Annexure-D). The circular lists the various classes of officers who are entitled to exercise their option to adopt the new Syndicate Bank (Employees'') Pension Regulations, 1995. The petitioner having revoked the option earlier exercised by him is covered by the terms noted in the said circular to the following effect:

"However, such of those employees/ex-employees/family members of the deceased employees, who have already exercised their option for Pension Scheme and authorised the Trustees of Provident Fund to transfer the Bank''s contribution of Provident Fund with interest thereon to the Pension Fund, may revoke their option on or before 29-11-1995 by a letter addressed to General Manager (Personnel), in case they desire to opt out of the Pension Scheme. If no such letter of revocation of option is received, as stated above, it will be deemed that the employees/ex-employees/family members of the deceased employees are agreeable to be governed by the Pension Regulations, 1995".

In terms of the above instructions, it is the admitted case, the petitioner exercised option on 27-11-1995 and opted out of the pension scheme. The provision providing for exercising option afresh, as aforesaid, also made it clear that the option once exercised shall be final and irrevocable. The Bank, thus, left nothing to chance when it made it very clear to the officers that the option exercised by them in pursuance of the circular dated 4-11-1995 would be final and irrevocable. Having opted out of the pension scheme even in the face of the aforesaid condition that it would be final and irrevocable, the petitioner by his said act has accepted the offer so made by the Bank which results in a concluded contract between the Bank and the officer.

Once the terms of a service contract are altered by mutual consent resulting in financial implications neither the employer nor the employee can be permitted to wriggle out of the outcome of such settlement only because it would be more beneficial or advantageous for either of them. The option exercised being irrevocable resulting in a concluded contract, this Court cannot exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution to redress the grievance of the petitioner as he has no legal right to seek for such a relief from this Court. In State of Orissa and others Vs. Narain Prasad and others, etc. etc., , the Apex Court had occasion to determine whether the High Court could exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters governed by agreements entered into voluntarily. The Apex Court in that regard, observed:

"Lastly, we may also invoke the holding in Har Shankar and Others Vs. The Dy. Excise and Taxation Commr. and Others, and State of Haryana v. Jage Ram AIR 1980 SC 2018 : 1980 Tax L.R. 2362, that the writ petitioners, having entered into agreements voluntarily, containing the conditions aforesaid and having done the business under the licences obtained by them, cannot be allowed to either wriggle out of the agreements nor can they be allowed to challenge the validity of the Rules which constitute the terms of the contract. The High Court should not have exercised its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in aid of such licences".

The petitioner does not even challenge the validity of the Pension Regulations, 1995 under which the service benefits were determined between the Bank and the petitioner. Without challenging the Pension Regulations, 1995, it is not open for the petitioner to seek the reliefs to which he is not entitled to under the Regulations. The petitioner having lost his right to the benefits to which he would have otherwise been entitled to had he not revoked his option earlier given in favour of receiving pension, he cannot now be permitted to get them now as the Bank would suffer a financial loss if he so permitted. This Court cannot exercise its option under Article 226 in favour of a person who has no legal right to the relief sought by him, more so if the grant of such relief would adversely affect the interests of the employer-Bank.

In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed.