LPA No. 312 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 312 of 2008
(In CWP No. 6540 of 2003)
Date of decision: 9.1.2009
State Bank of Patiala
...Appellant
Versus
Pritam Singh Bedi and others.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. H.N.Mehtani, Advocate and
Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate
Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate
Mr.M.K.Tiwari, Advocate
for the respondents.
-.-
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J. (Oral)
1. This appeal has been preferred under clause X of the Letter
Patent against judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated
22.10.2008.
2. The respondents, the writ petitioners sought directions to
release of the pension in their favour in accordance with the State Bank of
Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995.
3. The case of the petitioners was that they had rendered almost
19 years of service when a scheme called ‘Voluntary Retirement Scheme’
was introduced vide circular dated 20.1.2001. This scheme was introduced
as per guidelines issued through Indian Banks’ Association (IBA). The
LPA No. 312 of 2008 2
Scheme was applicable to the employees who had rendered 15 years of
service and had completed 40 years of age as on 13.1.2000. The scheme was
as a result of settlement between Government of India and Indian Banks’
Association. It was specifically provided in the Scheme in Rule 7 that the
employees who opted Voluntary Retirement Scheme were entitled to
pension or CPF as per rules applicable on the basis of actual years of service
rendered. However, the petitioners were not given pension on the ground
that they had not rendered 20 years of service as required under Regulation
29. The said Regulation was not applicable and Regulation 32 was
applicable which provided for compulsory retirement for pension after ten
years of service in case of public interest or any other reason specified in the
Regulations or Settlement. The Scheme was introduced for downsizing of
the existing strength of employees and to increase profitability and
sufficiency. The retirement was thus to be treated as `under orders of the
Bank’ as per Settlement. The Bank, however, denied pension by relying on
Rule 29 which dealt with voluntary retirement in which case pension is
applicable only after 20 years of service. The case of the petitioners was not
at par with voluntary retirement but at par with retirement `under order of
the Bank’. Reliance was also placed on circular dated 19.12.2000 laying
down that employees seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme were
eligible for pro-rata under the Scheme pension for a period of service
rendered by them at par with persons retiring on the age of superannuation
who were governed by Regulation 28 and who became eligible after
rendering 10 years of service. Some of the banks issued clarifications
permitting pension on voluntary retirement after 15 years of service.
Reference was made to circular dated 19.12.2000 by the Punjab National
LPA No. 312 of 2008 3
Bank and circular dated 5.3.2001 by the Allahabad Bank. The petitioners
having completed 40 years of age and more than 15 years of service would
not have opted for the Scheme giving up pension only four months before
completing 20 years, but for the understanding that their pension was not
being denied.
4. In the reply filed by the Bank, stand taken was that pension was
not admissible before completing 20 years of service. Reference was made
to Regulation 29 which was applicable to voluntary retirement and required
20 years of service for pension. The circular was mere suggestion of the
Indian Banks’ Association. It was never adopted by the Bank.
5. Learned Single Judge after analysing the Regulations and after
referring to circulars held that the case was covered in favour of the
petitioners by earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dharam Pal
Singh v. Punjab National Bank and others 2008(1) PLR 745 holding that
pension was payable under Regulation 28 and that Regulation 29 did not
apply.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-bank submitted that view
taken by the learned Single Judge for invoking Regulation 28 was not
correct as Regulation 28 was applicable only to superannuation pension.
Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court dated
18.12.2008 in Civil Appeal No. 7417 of 2008 Bank of Baroda and others
v. Ganpat Singh Deora holding that Regulations 14 and 29 were not
applicable. The employee opting for Voluntary Retirement Scheme was not
at par with employees seeking voluntary retirement, on his own, dehors
scheme. Regulations 14 and 32 did not apply but Regulation 28 was
LPA No. 312 of 2008 4
applicable. However, in that case since the concerned employees had not
completed 15 years of service stipulated under Regulation 28, the
employees were held not entitled to pension.
8. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents supported
the impugned judgment by submitting that the employees had completed
more than 15 years of service and in most of the cases 19 years of service
and under clause 7(1) (iii) of the Scheme, the pension as per rules was
contemplated. The Regulation dealing with the pension stipulated grant of
pension after 10 years of service on attaining the age of superannuation
under Regulation 28 . It was submitted that the judgment of Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda’s case (supra) fully supported the stand
of the writ petitioners. Therein regulation was amended to provide for 15
years service which employees in that did not have. In the present case
employees have more than 15 years of service and Regulation 28 requires
only 10 years.
9. In view of the rival submissions, the question for consideration
is whether the view taken by learned Single Judge holding the writ
petitioners to be entitled to pension under Regulation 28, following earlier
judgment of this Court in Dharam Pal Singh’s case (supra) is liable to be
interfered with.
10. Before discussing with the rival submissions, it will be
appropriate to extract the relevant Regulations:-
“14. 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.
LPA No. 312 of 2008 5
28. SUPERANNUATION PENSION:-
Superannuation pension shall be granted to an employee
who has retired on his attaining the age of superannuation
specified in the Service Regulations or Settlements.
32. PREMATURE RETIREMENT PENSION:-
Premature retirement pension may be granted to an
employee who,
(b) retires from service on account of orders of the Bank to
retire prematurely in the public interest of for any other reason
specified in service regulations or settlements, if otherwise he
was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date.”
11. It will also be appropriate to extract relevant part of the circular
and the Scheme which are as under:-
CIRCULAR
1. XX XX XX
2. XX XX XX
3. The Indian Bank’s Association, in turn had taken up the
matter with Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Banking
Division and the IBA with the approval of the Government of
India vide their letter No. PD/CIR/76/G2/G4/1529 dated
11.12.2000 has advised all the nationalised Banks, who have
introduced the voluntary retirement scheme in their respective
bank, as stated above, that the employees who are seeking
voluntary retirement and are Pension Optees under Pension
Regulations 1995, will be eligible for pro-rata pension for a
period of service rendered by them as if they are to retire on
LPA No. 312 of 2008 6attaining the age of superannuation on the date of their
relieving under the new voluntary retirement scheme
introduced by the Bank…..”
SCHEME
“OTHER BENEFITS:-
(i) xx xx xx
(ii) xx xx xx
(iii) Pension or Bank’s contribution to Provident Fund as the
case may be as per rules applicable on the relevant date on the
basis of actual years of service rendered.”
12. A perusal of the Regulation 28 shows that on attaining the age
of superannuation specified in Regulations or settlements pension is
payable. The age of superannuation has been laid down in Service
Regulations which is said to be 60 years now and earlier it was 58 years.
But under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which according to the writ
petitioners will be at par with Settlement, the requirement is 15 years of
service or 40 years of age, which admittedly the writ petitioners had. Under
Regulation 32 the pension is payable on premature retirement on account of
orders of the bank if the employee was otherwise entitled to
pension/superannuation on that day. Read with Regulations 14 and 28, the
said age is 10 years and if read with the Scheme, it is15 years of age or 40
years of service and in either case the employees were covered by the
pension scheme. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Regulation 29
relating to voluntary retirement was not applicable. Thus, contention on
behalf of the Bank that Regulation 29 applied and therefore, pension was
payable only after 20 years service cannot be accepted.
LPA No. 312 of 2008 7
13. Accordingly we hold that the view taken by the learned Single
Judge does not call for any interference.
14. The appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
9.1.2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
mk JUDGE