IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21/02/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN
W.P. NO. 6485 OF 2001
V.Subramaniam .. Petitioner
-Vs-
The Central Bank of India
rep. By its Managing Director
Plot No.C-6, Block E, V Floor
Bandra Kurla Complex
Bandra (E)
MUMBAI 400 051. .. Respondent
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying
this Court to issue a Writ of Declaration as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Ayyathurai
For Respondent : Mr. Karthik, for
M/s.T.S. Gopalan & Co.
:ORDER
1. The writ petitioner, a retired officer of the respondent Bank, has prayed
for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring Regulation No.22 of The
Central Bank of India Employees Pension Regulation, 1995, is null and void
insofar as it disentitles the employees who resigned to pension and,
consequently direct the respondent to pay pension to the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr.S.Ayyathurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Mr.Karthik, learned counsel appearing for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., for the
respondents. With the consent of either side, the writ petition is taken up
for final disposal.
3. The facts leading to the present writ petition has to be summarised
briefly for considering the contentions advanced by petitioner. The
petitioner, who joined the respondent Bank as a clerk on 3.9.56, in course of
time earned promotion to the cadre of officer. In September 1986, the
petitioner submitted his resignation in accordance with the Central Bank of
India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, and the same was accepted by the
respondent. On completion of 30 years of continuous service, the petitioner
voluntarily retired from service. On retirement, all terminal benefits
payable as per the existing rules, it is admitted has been paid and received
by the petitioner.
4. The respondent framed the Central Bank of India (Employee) Pension
Regulations, 1995, for its employees. Regulation 3 of the said Pension
Regulation will cover all employees, who were in service of the Bank on or
after the first day of January, 1986. The petitioner claims that he was in
service till September, 1986 and, therefore, he is entitled to claim pension
under the Regulations. The petitioner’s request for pension was turned down
as the petitioner has resigned and in that view, the request of the petitioner
for payment of pension under the regulation has been turned down. According
to the petitioner, the resignation would only mean voluntary retirement. The
application submitted on 11.9.2000 claiming pension was rejected by order
dated 30.9.2000 stating that the petitioner will not be entitled to pension as
his case do not fall under any of the categories.
5. According to the petitioner, Regulation 22 of the pension regulation
insofar as it denies pension for those who resigned is arbitrary, unreasonable
and unfair and, therefore, violative of Article 14 and 2 1 of The
Constitution. The equation of resignation with dismissal or removal or
termination of the service of an employee to disentitle a resignee is unfair,
unreasonable and arbitrary. There is no provision relating to resignation and
Regulation 19 of the rules only speaks of voluntary retirement. Therefore,
according to the petitioner, his resignation is a voluntary retirement and a
direction should be issued consequentially to settle the pension payable under
the rules.
6. The respondent filed a counter opposing the claim, besides pointing out
that since the petitioner has left the Bank 25 years since, a quarter century
before, no records are available. The Central Bank of India was nationalised
by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970.
By virtue of powers conferred under Section 19 read with Section 12 (2) of the
said enactment, the Bank in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and
with the previous approval of the Central Government framed service
regulations in respect of officers, which came into force on 1.7.79.
Regulation 19 prescribes the age of retirement. Regulation 19.7 deals with
voluntary retirement of officers before reaching the age of superannuation.
In terms of Regulation 19.7 (a), an officer employee of the Bank may be
permitted to retire voluntarily from service at any time, if he or she has
completed 30 years of service as an officer or has attained the age of 55
years, whichever is earlier, by giving three months notice in writing. Such
an officer under Regulation 19.7 (e) shall be entitled to benefits as
applicable under normal retirement in accordance with the provisions of The
Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979.
7. The Central Bank of India Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, (
hereinafter referred to as pension regulations) was framed by virtue of power
conferred under Section 19 (2) (f) of The Banking Companies ( Acquisition and
Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. Regulation 3 applies to employees, who
were in service on or after the 1st January, 1 986, but retired before 1st
November, 1993. According to the respondent, the officer-employee, who was in
service after 1st January, 1986 but retired before 1st November 1993 alone
could exercise the option for drawing pension, provided such an option is
expressed within the time stipulated and refunds the amount received towards
banks contribution.
8. The petitioner was born on 15.12.1934 and joined the services of the bank
on 3.9.56 as a clerk. Long time after that he was promoted as an officer from
which post he resigned in June 1986 and he was relieved on 3.9.86. His
terminal benefits were paid as the petitioner’s resignation took place nearly
24 years back. No papers pertaining to the petitioner are traceable so that
the bank could set out full particulars.
9. It is stated by the respondent that the petitioner has not put in 30 years
of service as an officer nor he had attained the age of 55 years at the time
when his resignation was accepted in 1986. The cessation of petitioner’s
employment was not by way of voluntary retirement under Regulation 19 of The
Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979. Further without
prejudice it is submitted that the petitioner had not approached the
respondent Bank and expressed his option for drawing pension in accordance
with the regulations. The petitioner has failed to approach the Bank within
120 days nor he has refunded the amount of the Bank’s contribution of
provident fund with interest. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for
payment of pension is without merits. The petitioner has approached the Bank
belatedly and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches. The various contentions advanced by the petitioner are
devoid of merits. The contention that Regulation 22 is unconstitutional also
cannot be countenanced. The petitioner, who resigned in terms of Regulation
22 of the pension regulations forfeiting his past service and, therefore, he
is not qualified for pension. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief
prayed for in this writ petition.
10. Mr.Ayyathurai, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
Regulation 22 of The Central Bank of India Employees Pension Regulation has to
be declared as unconstitutional and, consequently, a direction has to be
issued to the respondent-bank to pay pension for the services rendered by the
petitioner. Per contra it is contended that the question whether Regulation
29 is unconstitutional or not will not arise and assuming so also, the
petitioner will not be entitled to pension as on facts, in terms of the
pension regulations, the petitioner will not be entitled to pension at all.
Mr.Karthick, learned counsel for the respondent, while referring to the
regulations contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
11. The points that arise for consideration in this writ petition are :-
“i) Whether Regulation 22 (1) of The Central Bank of India ( Employees)
Pension Regulations, 1995, is liable to be declared as unconstitutional ?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for a direction for payment of pension
by the respondent Bank on the facts of the case ?”
12. To consider both the questions, it is essential to refer to some of the
provisions of the Pension Regulations, 1995, which regulation is statutory.
Regulation 2 (y) defines the expression “retirement”. The definition reads
thus :-
“2(y)”Retirement” means cessation from Bank’s service, –
(a) on attaining the age of superannuation specified in Service Regulations or
Settlements;
(b) on voluntary retirement in accordance with provisions contained in
regulation 29 of these regulations;
(c) on premature retirement by the Bank before attaining the age of
superannuation specified in Service Regulations or Settlement.”
13. Regulation 2 (x) defines the expression “retired”, which includes “deemed
to have retired” in clause “l”. Regulation 2 (l) defines the expression
“deemed to have retired” and it reads thus :-
“Deemed to have retired” means cessation from service of the Bank on
appointment by Central Government as a whole-time Director of Managing
Director or Chairman in the Bank or in any other Bank specified in column 2 of
the FIRST SCHEDULE of the Act or Banking Companies ( Acquisition and Transfer
of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) or in any public financial institution
or State Bank of India established under State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of
1955).”
14. Regulation 3 (1), which is relevant for the present case, reads thus :-
“Application : These regulations shall apply to employees who –
(1) (a) were in the service of the Bank on or after the 1st day of January,
1986 but had retired before the 1st day of November, 1993; and
(b) exercise an option in writing within one hundred and twenty days from the
notified date to become member of the Fund; and
(c) refund within sixty days after the expiry of the said period of one
hundred and twenty days specified in clause (b) the entire amount of the
Bank’s contribution to the Provident Fund including interest accrued thereon
together with a further simple interest at the rate of six percent per annum
on the said amount from the date of settlement of the Provident Fund account
till the date of refund of the aforesaid amount to the Bank.”
15. Chapter IV of the Regulation prescribes the qualifying service. In
Chapter IV, Regulation 22 provides for forfeiture of service, which reads thus
:-
“Qualifying Service – Subject to the other conditions contained in these
regulations, an employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service in
the Bank on the date of his retirement or the date on which he is deemed to
have retired shall qualify for pension.”
The remaining portion of this regulations is not relevant for the purpose of
the present case. This is the provision, which is sought to be challenged as
unconstitutional or violative of Article 14 & 21.
16. Regulation 29 provides for payment of pension in case of voluntary
retirement on or after the 1st day of November 1993 and at any time after an
employee has completed 20 years of qualifying service. The individual officer
may by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the
appointing authority retire from service. Such a notice has to be accepted by
the appointing authority. Thus Regulation 29 will not cover the case of the
petitioner as according to him he has resigned during the year 1986 and long
prior to commencement of the regulation.
17. Regulation 32 provides for premature retirement pension and Regulation 33
provides for compulsory retirement pension. While referring to Service
Regulation 19.7 of the Officers Service Rules, it is being pointed out that
the petitioner could not have been allowed to retire voluntarily in terms of
Regulation 19 as on the date of retirement, the petitioner could not have
satisfied with Service Regulation 19.7, which reads thus :-
“19.7 (a) An officer of the Bank may be permitted to retire voluntarily from
the service of the Bank at any time if he/she has completed 3 0 years of
service as an officer or has attained the age of 55 years, whichever happens
earlier, after giving the Bank 3 months’ notice in writing.”
18. Admittedly the petitioner did not held the post of officer for 30 years
nor he has attained the age of 55 years on the date of his leaving the bank.
Therefore, the petitioner could not have been permitted to retire voluntarily
in terms of Regulation 19 of the service rules. Mr.Karthik, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent, is well founded in his contention and
this factual and legal position is fatal to the claim of pension by the
petitioner. In case of retirement of officers under proviso to sub-regulation
(1) of Regulation 19 , an officer is entitled for payment of pension. The
petitioner has not retired voluntarily in terms of Regulation 19 of The
Officer’s Service Rules.
19. “Retirement” means either on attaining the age of superannuation or
voluntary retirement in accordance with provision to Regulation 29 or
premature retirement by the Bank on attaining the age of superannuation
specified in the service rules. Admittedly, the petitioner’s case do not fall
under either the first contingency or the 3rd contingency. If at all he may
claim under the 2nd contingency, namely, voluntary retirement. But such
voluntary retirement should be in accordance with Regulation 29.
20. Regulation 29 (1) also will not cover the case of the petitioner as
Regulation 29 would apply to a case where an employee on and after the 1st day
of November 1993 and at any time after thereof, on completion of 20 years of
qualifying service, may retire by giving notice of not less than three months
in writing to the appointing authority. This is not the case and it is not as
if the petitioner has retired on and after the 1st November, 1993. Therefore,
Regulation 29 will have no application to the facts of the present case.
21. The petitioner also cannot take advantage of the definition clause 2 (l)
“deemed to have retired”, as it is not as if the cessation from service of the
bank on appointment to Central Government or as a whole-time Director or
Managing Director or Chairman in the Bank or any other Bank specified in
Column 2 of the first schedule of the Act or in any public financial
institution or State Bank of India established under The State Bank of India
Act, 1955. Thus on a conceptuous consideration of the Central Bank of India
Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, the petitioner’s claim for payment of
pension cannot be countenanced and it has to be rejected. Accordingly, the
2nd point is answered against the petitioner.
22. Taking up the first contention, challenge to Regulation 22, which
provides pension in case of resignation before 1.11.1993 and in case of
dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from service of the Bank
the individual officer will result in forfeiture of pensionary benefits.
According to Mr.Ayyathurai, learned counsel for the petitioner, the
resignation or dismissal or removal or termination are sought to be treated
equally and this is arbitrary, besides it is violative of Article 14 and 21.
23. In this respect, Mr.Ayyathurai, learned counsel for the petitioner
referred to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in J.K. COTTON SPINNING &
WEAVING MILLS VS. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS reported in AIR 19 90 SC 1808. In
the said pronouncement, the Apex Court, while construing Section 2 (s) of The
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, held that termination of service by
employer by accepting resignation does not amount to retrenchment and the same
shall be covered by voluntary retirement under Section 2 (s) of The U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 19 47. In that context, the Apex Court held thus :-
“8. In the present case the employee’s request contained in the letter of
resignation was accepted by the employer and that brought an end to the
contract of service. The meaning of term ‘resign’ as found in the Shorter
Oxford Dictionary includes ‘retirement’. Therefore, when an employee
voluntarily tenders his resignation it is an act by which he voluntarily gives
up his job. We are, therefore, of the opinion that such a situation would be
covered by the expression ‘ voluntary retirement’ within the meaning of Cl.(i)
of Sec.2(s) of the State Act. In Santosh Gupta’s case (AIR 1980 SC 1219),
Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed as under (at p. 1220 of AIR):
“Voluntary retrenchment of a workman or the retrenchment of the workman on
reaching the age of superannuation can hardly be described as termination, by
the employer, of the service of a workman.”
(Here the word ‘retrenchment’ has reference to ‘retirement’.)
The above observation clearly supports the view which commends to us. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was not right in concluding that
because the employer accepted the resignation offer voluntarily made by the
employee, he terminated the service of the employee and such termination,
therefore, fell within the expression ‘retrenchment’ rendering him liable to
compensate the employee under S.6N. We are also of the view that this was a
case of ‘voluntary retirement’ within the meaning of the first exception to
Sec.2(s) and therefore the question of grant of compensation under S.6N does
not arise. We therefore, cannot allow the view of the High Court to stand.”
24. The above pronouncement will not advance the case of the petitioner as
the Apex Court had occasion to consider what is the meaning of the expression
“resignation” and effect of such resignation and held that acceptance of
resignation offered voluntarily is not retrenchment and no compensation is
payable under Section 6-L by the employer.
25. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the pronouncement in
CECIL DENNIS SOLOMON & ANOTHER VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANOTHER reported
in 2002 (3) LLJ 115 in support of his contention that resignation from service
is not equivalent to dismissal or termination, both of which are the acts of
management, but resignation is more akin to voluntary retirement. This
pronouncement also will not support the petitioner’s contention or claim.
26. It is admitted that on the date when the petitioner entered the service
of the respondent Bank as well as on the date when the petitioner resigned,
there was no provision at all for payment of pension nor there was any scheme
and for the first time, the scheme was introduced in the Pension Rules long
after the retirement of the petitioner from the service of the Bank. As such
none of the vested rights of the petitioner had been taken away by any of the
provisions under the Pension Rules, which came into force on 1.7.79.
27. In TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. R. VEERASAMY reported in 1999 (3)
SCC 414, where their Lordships of the Apex Court had occasion to consider the
contention whether prospective introduction of pension scheme with reference
to a cut off date is valid or violative of Articles 14 and 16 or based upon a
classification or based on intelligible differentia like cut off date?
Venkatasami, J., (as he then was), after analysing the case law, held thus :-
“8. As noticed earlier, the law is very well settled on the issue on hand.
In the latest judgment dated 9.10.1998 of this Court in V. Kasturi v.
Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay after noticing all the
judgments of this Court up to that date on this issue, it was held as follows:
“23. However, if an employee at the time of his retirement is not eligible
for earning pension and stands outside the class of pensioners, if
subsequently by amendment of the relevant pension rules any beneficial
umbrella of pension scheme is extended to cover a new class of pensioners and
when such a subsequent scheme comes into force, the erstwhile non-pensioner
might have survived, then only if such extension of pension scheme to
erstwhile non-pensioners is expressly made retrospective by the authorities
promulgating such scheme; the erstwhile non-pensioner who has retired prior to
the advent of such extended pension scheme can claim benefit of such a new
extended pension scheme. If such new scheme is prospective only, old retirees
nonpensioners cannot get the benefit of such a scheme even if they survive
such new scheme. They will remain outside its sweep. The decisions of this
Court covering such second category of cases are: Commander, Head Quarter v.
Cap. Biplabendra Chanda and Govt. of T.N. v. K. Jayaraman to which we
have made a reference earlier. If the claimant for pension benefits
satisfactorily brings his case within the first category of cases, he would be
entitled to get the additional benefits of pension computation even if he
might have retired prior to the enforcement of such additional beneficial
provisions. But if on the other hand, the case of a retired employee falls in
the second category, the fact that he retired prior to the relevant date of
the coming into operation of the new scheme would disentitle him from getting
such a new benefit.”
* * * *
11. On 17.11.1998, a three Judge Bench in All India PNB Retired Officers’
Assn. v. Union of India while negativing an identical claim, held as
follows:
“This writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in All
India Reserve Bank Retired Officers’ Assn. v. Union of India. That judgment
has rightly noted the distinction that Nakara case drew between a continuing
scheme and a new scheme.”
12. In view of the fact that this Court, as seen above, has consistently
taken a view, we do not want to multiply the authorities for the same
proposition except to note down the undisputed facts relating to these cases.”
Following the said pronouncement, this Court also holds that the cut off date,
in the present case, is neither violative of Article 14 nor Article 16.
Therefore, the contention advanced in this respect cannot be sustained.
28. In STATE OF W.B. VS. RATAN BEHARI DEY & ORS., reported in 1993 (4 ) SCC
62, the Apex Court held that an employer has the undoubted power to revise the
salaries and/or pay scales and so also the terminal benefits, pensionary
benefits and it has the power to specify the date from which revision of pay
or pensionary benefits, as the case may be, shall take effect, as it is a
concomitant of the said power and when there is no discrimination between
similarly placed persons, no interference is called for by the Court in that
behalf. This pronouncement squarely applies.
29. While following the pronouncement in ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK RETIRED
OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER (1992 Supp. (1)
SCC 664), in SUBRATA SEN VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in 20 01 (8) SCC 71,
M.B.Shah, J., reiterated the law laid down by Ahamadi J.
30. In ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS VS.
UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 664, while examining
the scope of Reserve Bank of India Officers Regulations, which was challenged
as violative of Article 14, and in particular the cut off date, the Apex Court
held thus :-
“Whenever any rule or regulation having statutory flavour is made by an
authority which is a State within the meaning of Art.21, the choice of the
cut-off date which has necessarily to be introduced to effectuate such
benefits such benefits is open to scrutiny by the Court and must be supported
on the touchstone of Art.14. If the choice of the date results in
classification or division of members of a homogeneous group it would be open
to the Court to insist that it be shown that the classification is based on an
intelligible differentia and on rational consideration which bears a nexus to
the purpose and object thereof. The differential treatment accorded to those
who retired prior to the specified date and those who retired subsequent
thereto must be justified on the touchstone of Art.14, for otherwise it would
be offensive to the philosophy of equality enshrined in the Constitution.
However, a distinction has to be drawn between continuance of an existing
scheme in its liberalised form and introduction of a wholly new scheme; in the
case of the former all the pensioners had a right to pension on uniform basis
and any division which classified them into two groups by introducing a
cut-off date would ordinarily violate the principle of equality in treatment
unless there is a strong rationale discernible for so doing and the same can
be supported on the ground that it will subserve the object sought to be
achieved. But in the case of a new scheme, in respect whereof the retired
employees have no vested right, the employer can restrict the same to certain
class of retirees, having regard to the fact-situation in which it came to be
introduced, the extent of additional financial burden that it will throw, the
capacity of the employer to bear the same, the feasibility of extending the
scheme to all retirees regardless of the dates of their retirement, the
availability of records of every retiree, etc. In the case of an employee
governed by the CPF scheme his relations with the employer come to an end on
his retirement and receipt of the CPF amount but in the case of an employee
governed under the pension scheme his relations with the employer merely
undergo a change but do not snap altogether. That is the reason why the
Supreme Court in Nakara case drew a distinction between liberalisation of an
existing benefit and introduction of a totally new scheme. in the case of
pensioners it is necessary to revise the pension periodically as the
continuous fall in the rupee value and the rise in prices of essential
commodities necessitates an adjustment of the pension amount but that is not
the case of employees governed under the CPF scheme, since they had received
the lump sum payment which they were at liberty to invest in a manner that
would yield optimum return which would take care of the inflationary trends.
The scheme introduced by the Regulations is a totally new one. It was not in
existence prior to its introduction with effect from November 1, 1990. The
employees of the Reserve Bank who had retired prior to that date were
admittedly governed by the CPF scheme. They had received the benefit of
employer’s contribution under that scheme and on superannuation the amount to
their account was disbursed to them and they had put it to use also. There
can, therefore, be no doubt that the retiral benefits admissible to them under
the extant Rules of the Bank had been paid to them. That was the social
security plan available to them at the date of their retirement. Therefore,
if the CPF retirees were not admitted to this new scheme they could not make
any grievance in that behalf. They had no right to claim coverage under the
new pension scheme since they had already retired and had collected their
retiral benefits from the employer.” (Emphasis Supplied)
31. In B.S.YADAV VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA reported in 1987 (3) SCC 1 20,
the Apex Court sustained the validity of classification of employees into two
categories and held that they are not violative of Article 14 or 16. In that
context, the Apex Court held thus :-
“16. We have given detailed reasons in our judgment in LIC v. S.S.
Srivastava decided cm May 5, 1987 justifying the existence of a rule fixing
different ages of retirement to different classes of employees of the Life
Insurance Corporation of India in the circumstances existing there. The
circumstances prevailing in this case are almost the same. Those reasons are
equally applicable to the present case too. In Govindarajulu v. Management
of the Union Bank of India decided on November 21, 1986 the High Court of
Madras has rejected the contentions similar to those which are raised before
us. In that case a regulation framed by the Union Bank of India which was
similar to the one in this case was upheld. That decision has been approved
by us in LIC v. S.S. Srivastava. In Dr Nikhil Bhusan Chandra v. Union of
India similar regulations framed by the United Commercial Bank which was also
nationalised under the Act came up for ‘consideration before the High Court of
Calcutta. The High Court rejected the theory of discrimination put forward on
the basis that fixing 60 years as age of retirement for those who were
recruited prior to July 19, 1969 and 58 years of age who joined after that
date lacked an intelligible differentia. The Calcutta High Court pointed out
that the terms and conditions of the service of the employees of the banks
which were taken over under the Act had been protected by the Act and it was
not possible to hold that there had been any hostile discrimination against
the petitioner in that case. We are of the view that the decisions of the
Madras High Court and the Calcutta High Court, referred to above, lay down the
correct principle. It is true that if the nationalised banks wanted to reduce
the age of retirement of the transferred employees they could have done so.
But they have tried to standardise their conditions of service and to bring
about some uniformity without giving room for much discontent or
dissatisfaction. The question involved in this matter is not one of mere
competence. It involves justice and fairness too. Having regard to all
aspects of the matter, the nationalised banks have tried to be fair and just
insofar as the question of age of retirement is concerned. We cannot say in
the circumstances that the Bank’s attitude is unreasonable, particularly when
the age of retirement of the new entrants is quite consistent with the
conditions prevailing in almost all the sectors of public employment.
17. We are of the view that the classification of the employees into two
categories, i.e., those falling under Rules 1 and 2 of the Rules for Age of
Retirement and those falling under Rule 3 thereof satisfies the tests of a
valid classification laid down under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
We do not, therefore, find any ground to declare Rule 3 of the Rules for Age
of Retirement, which is impugned in this case, as unconstitutional.”
32. In the present case also, if the resignation is after the introduction of
the pension scheme and if such resignation is in conformity with the pension
regulations read with the officers service rules, the individual officer will
be entitled to pension subject to eligibility. But Regulation 22, which
provides forfeiture of pension in this case, as rightly contended, is not
violative of Article 14 and 21, as Regulation 29 provides for pension on
voluntary retirement on or after the 1st day of November, 1993 at any time on
completion of 20 years of qualifying service by giving three months notice and
satisfying the requirements stipulated under Regulation 29. Therefore,
Regulation 22, which provides for forfeiture of service in case of
resignation, which applies only to those who have resigned before 1st day of
November, 1993, and such cut off date cannot be held to be arbitrary or
violative of Article 14 or 21. The petitioner, who has no right to pension
either on the date when he entered the service or on the date when he resigned
according to him, has no right to pension and he cannot, therefore, contend
that Regulation 22 (1) offends either Article 14 or 21.
33. The reliance placed upon the pronouncement in DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION MAZDOOR CONGRESS reported in 1991 Supp. (1)
SCC 600 as well as the pronouncement in RESERVE BANK OF INDIA VS. S.JAYARAJAN
reported in 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 584 will not support the contention advanced
by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to lay
his hands on any other authority in this respect to support his contention.
34. Regulation 22 (1) of The Pension Regulations, which is being challenged,
is not arbitrary nor it is irrational nor any accrued rights of the petitioner
are being denied. Hence, this Court holds that the contention that Regulation
22 (1) is violative of Article 14 and 21 cannot be countenanced. Hence, both
the points are answered against the writ petitioner and in favour of the
respondent.
35. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed, but without costs.
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
GLN
To
The Managing Director
Central Bank of India
Plot No.C-6, Block E, V Floor
Bandra Kurla Complex
Bandra (E)
MUMBAI 400 051.