Shankar Ganapathi Pandit, J.

1. Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order bearing No. HRW 1RS NPS 20 442 2017 dated 03.02.2017 (Annexure-N) and order bearing No. HRW IRS 20 3409 2017 dated 18.07.2017 (Annexure-Q) passed by the 2nd respondent/Canara Bank by which, petitioner's request for calculating terminal benefits on the basis of additional emoluments drawn from State Bank of India on deputation is rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel Smt. Rajitha T.O. for petitioner and learned counsel Sri T.P. Muthanna for respondent No. 2. Perused the writ petition papers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while the petitioner was working as General Manager of the second respondent-Canara Bank, in pursuance of the Circular dated 20.07.2011 inviting consent for deputation as Chief Vigilance Officer of State Bank of India, the petitioner opted for deputation as Chief Vigilance Officer of State Bank of India. In pursuance of the petitioner's option to go on deputation, the State Bank of India by its letter dated 09.01.2012 (Annexure-R4) appointed the petitioner as Chief Vigilance Officer of the State Bank of India on certain terms and conditions appended to the letter of appointment. It is stated that initially, the petitioner was deputed for a period of 3 years and he was continued beyond 3 years till his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2016. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner opted for pay and allowances applicable to the Chief General Manager in State Bank of India even though he was General Manager in Canara Bank. On his retirement, second respondent-Canara Bank settled terminal benefits of the petitioner taking average 10 months emoluments of the petitioner, treating him as General Manager of the second respondent-Canara Bank and on the basis of emoluments entitled to by the General Manager of Canara Bank as if the petitioner continued in second respondent-Canara Bank.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on his retirement, the petitioner said to have submitted a representation to the second respondent-Canara Bank to settle terminal benefits taking pay and allowances drawn by the petitioner as Chief Vigilance Officer of State Bank of India, since, the petitioner retired as Chief Vigilance Officer of State Bank of India. Learned counsel contends that Regulation 38(1) of Canara Bank (Employees Pension) Regulations 1995 (for short "1995 Regulations") requires reckoning the average emoluments of 10 months proceeding the date of retirement. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the average emoluments of last 10 months preceding the date of petitioner's retirement as Chief Vigilance Officer of the State Bank of India would have to be taken for reckoning the average emoluments. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Regulation 25 regulates the period of deputation of an employee to another Organization in India. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the deputation period will count as qualifying service for all purposes. Since the period of deputation is counted as qualifying service for all purposes, the emoluments drawn on deputation shall be taken into consideration for reckoning average emoluments for the purpose of terminal benefits. It is the contention of the petitioner that proviso to Regulation 25 mandates the Borrowing authority to contribute towards pension, which the respondents have failed to contribute. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner would be entitled for terminal benefits by reckoning average emoluments on the last pay drawn by the petitioner as Chief Vigilance Officer of State Bank of India, since the impugned orders rejecting the request of the petitioner is opposed to regulation 38(1) and regulation 25 of 1995 Regulations. Hence, the petitioner prays for allowing the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri T.P. Muthanna appearing for second respondent-Canara Bank contends that the petitioner was sent on deputation with terms and conditions mentioned in the order of deputation which makes it clear that the Borrowing Bank would not be responsible or would not contribute terminal benefits and the petitioner would be entitled for terminal benefits as if the petitioner is continued as General Manager in the second respondent-Canara Bank. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner would have been entitled for reckoning 10 months average pay drawn at State Bank of India, if the State Bank of India had complied the proviso to regulation 25 of 1995 regulations. Further, learned counsel Sri T.P. Muthanna invites attention of this Court to Annexure-R5, clarification issued by the Indian Bank Association wherein it is clarified that the substantive pay that an Officer would have drawn in the parent Bank, but for his deputation, be reckoned for the purpose of settlement of terminal benefits. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner who was General Manager of the second respondent-Canara Bank was deputed on his option to State Bank of India as Chief Vigilance Officer. The petitioner retried on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2016 while he was working as Chief Vigilance Officer of State Bank of India on deputation. The petitioner was deputed on terms and conditions appended to the appointment of the petitioner as Chief Vigilance Officer as per Annexure-R4 appointment letter dated 09.01.2012. The petitioner accepted the terms and conditions and went on deputation to State Bank of India.

7. Relevant conditions which are germane to the present case are condition No. 2 and 4 which reads as follows:

"(ii) You will be placed in State Bank of India (State Bank of India) in the rand of Chief General Manager and will have the option to draw your pay and allowances applicable to the post of Chief General Manager in SBI. In case you opt to draw pay of your substantive post in Canara Bank, in terms of the provisions contained in the 'Officers' Service Regulations' applicable to Canara Bank, you will be eligible to draw 15% of basic pay as Special Allowance in lieu of Deputation Allowance.

(iv) During the period of deputation, the contribution towards Leave, Salary and Contributory Provident Fund will be borne by State Bank of India. However, the superannuation/terminal benefits and all other such benefits which are available at the time of retirement will not be paid/made available by our Bank. Such benefits may be made available by you parent bank, viz., Canara Bank as per its 'Officers' Service Regulations'."

A reading of the above terms and conditions would indicate that the petitioner was given option to draw pay and allowances applicable to the post of Chief General Manager in the State Bank of India or to draw pay on his substantive post in Canara Bank and to draw 15% basic pay as special allowance in lieu of deputation allowances. The petitioner opted for the pay and allowances applicable to the post of Chief General Manager in the State Bank of India which is equivalent to Chief Vigilance Officer. Accordingly, he drew the pay and allowances of Chief General Manager in the State Bank of India during his deputation to the 3rd respondent-State Bank of India.

8. Condition No. (iv) would makes it clear that superannuation/terminal benefits will not be paid/made available by the State Bank of India and such benefits be made available by the parent Bank i.e., Canara Bank as per its service regulations, which means that the petitioner would not be entitled for reckoning the pay drawn by him as Chief Vigilance Officer at State Bank of India for the purpose of arriving at average monthly emoluments preceding the last 10 months prior to the date of retirement.

9. Regulation 38(1) of 1995 Regulations reads as follows:

"38(1) The period of the preceding ten months for the purpose of average emoluments shall be reckoned from the date of retirement."

The above regulation makes it clear that for the purpose of terminal benefits, 10 months preceding from the date of retirement average emoluments shall be reckoned. Since one of the conditions of deputation was that the superannuation/terminal benefits and all such other benefits which are available at the time of retirement will not be paid by State Bank of India. Therefore the petitioner was entitled to terminal benefits as if he is continued as General Manager at 2nd respondent Canara Bank on the emoluments that he would have drawn as General Manager. Accordingly the 2nd respondent settled terminal benefits reckoning average emoluments as required under Regulation 38(1) of 1995 Regulations.

10. Regulation 25 of 1995 Regulations reads as follows:

"25. Period of deputation to an organization in India:-

Period of deputation of an employee to another organization in India will count as qualifying service.

Provided the organization to which he is deputed or the employee pays the pensionary contributions at the rates specified in sub-regulation (a) of regulation 7 of these regulations or at the rates specified by the Bank at the time of deputation, whichever is higher to the Bank."

Proviso to the above regulation makes it clear that if the organization to which the employee of second respondent-Canara Bank is deputed pays the pensionary contributions at the rate specified in sub-regulation (a) of regulation 7 of 1995 regulations or at the rate specified by Bank at the time of deputation, then the employee on deputation could demand settlement of pension on the basis of salary drawn on deputed post. If such contribution is made available then only the emoluments drawn in the deputed post could be reckoned for the purpose of regulation 38(1). Moreover, the letter of Indian Banks Association (Annexure-R5) clarifies the said position. Relevant paragraphs 1 to 3 of the said clarification letter at Annexure-R5 reads as follows:

"1. In terms of Regulation 25 of the Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, the period of deputation of an employee to another organization in India will count as qualifying service provided the borrower organization pays to the bank the pensionary contributions at the rate of ten percent per month of the pay of the employee or at the rates specified by the Bank at the time of deputation, whichever is higher.

2. Basic pension is calculated as a percentage of average emoluments which is determined with reference to the emoluments drawn by the employee during the preceding ten months from the date of retirement.

3. One of the public sector bank had enquired about computation of basic pension in respect of an officer employee who was deputed to another bank on a higher scale and had retired on attaining the age of superannuation during the period of deputation. The issue was whether for the purpose of arriving at average emoluments (i) the pay actually drawn by the officer in the higher scale in the loanee organization/bank or (ii) the substantive pay the officer would have drawn but for his deputation, is to be reckoned."

11. The petitioner was deputed as Chief Vigilance Officer at State Bank of India on his consent and the petitioner accepted the terms and conditions of his deputation which are noted in the order of appointment dated 09.01.2012. When the petitioner accepted the terms and conditions, wherein it is indicated that the borrowing bank would not contribute towards petitioner's retirement benefits, the petitioner would be entitled for benefits as available to him in his parent Bank. It is not open for the petitioner to claim terminal benefits of pay and allowances drawn by him as Chief Vigilance Officer. The second respondent-Canara Bank rightly settled the terminal benefits of the petitioner as if the petitioner continued as General Manager of the second respondent-Canara Bank. Thus, I do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the second respondent-Canara Bank. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.