Allahabad High Court
Smt. Rani And Anr. vs The Bank Of Baroda Thru. Its Chairman And ... on 6 February, 2023
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 17 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 791 of 2015 Petitioner :- Smt. Rani And Anr. Respondent :- The Bank Of Baroda Thru. Its Chairman And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- L.K. Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- Vinay Shankar Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinay Shankar the counsel for the respondent Bank.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming that the husband of the petitioner was appointed with the respondent bank and died on 09.01.2009. Thereafter the petitioner, according to her, was entitled to gratuity as well as family pension in terms of the Bank of Baroda (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 and to the gratuity in terms of the internal communication dated February 2, 2006.
During the course of arguments, the counsel for the petitioner states that the gratuity has been paid to the petitioner in terms of the provisions of Clause IV of the letter dated 02.02.2006 and thus, to that extent he is not pressing the present writ petition, however, he argues that the Family Pension in terms of 1995 Regulations ought to have been paid to the petitioner being the wife of the deceased.
Along with the counter affidavit, the Pension Regulation 1995 has been placed on record and the counsel for the respondents Bank argues that the petitioner would not be entitled to Family Pension on account of there being specific stipulation in the said Regulations that the employee had to exercise the option as provided under Clause 3 (1)(b) of the Regulations and as the husband of the petitioner had not given an option and had not become the member of the Fund, therefore, the claim of the Family Pension is contrary to the Regulations, 1995.
In the light of the said submissions made at the bar, this Court is to consider the right of petitioner for grant of Family Pension flowing from the Regulations 1995. A perusal of the Regulations which are on record as Annexure CA-2 makes it clear that the Bank of Baroda had framed the said Regulations in exercise of the power conferred to Clause (f) of Section 19(2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. Clause 2 (t) of the said Regulations defined the 'Pension' to the following effect :
(t)- 'Pension' includes the basic pension and additional pension referred to in Chapter VI of these Regulations.
The provision of Payment of Pension is contained in Chapter VI, however, the Family Pension is governed by Chapter VII of the said Regulations wherein Regulation 39 of the said Regulations prescribes for grant of Family Pension. In the event of the following, Regulation 39 is quoted herein below :
(1) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in these regulations where an employee dies ?
(a) after completion of one year of continuous service; or
(b) before completion of one year of continuous service provided the deceased employee concerned immediately prior to his appointment to the service or post was examined by a medical officer approved by the Bank and declared fit for employment in the Bank; or
(c) after retirement from service and was on the date of death in receipt of a pension, or compassionate allowance;
the family of the deceased shall be entitled to family pension, the amount of which shall be determined in accordance with Appendix III.
Provided that in respect of employees who were in the service of the Bank on or after the 1st day of January, 1986 and had died while in service on or before the 31st day of October, 1987 or had retired on or before 31st day of October, 1987 but died later, the family of the deceased shall be entitled to family pension, the amount of which shall be determined in accordance with Appendix V."
(2) The amount of family pension shall be fixed at monthly rates and be expressed in whole rupees and where the family pension contains of a rupee, it shall be rounded off to the next higher rupee;
Provided that in no case a family pension in excess of the maximum prescribed under these regulations shall be allowed.
(3) (a) (i) Where an employee, who is not governed by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), dies while in service after having rendered not less than seven years' continuous service, the rate of family pension payable to the family shall be equal to fifty per cent of the pay last drawn or twice the family pension admissible under sub-regulation (1), whichever is less, and the amount so admissible shall be payable from the date following the date of death of the employee for a period of seven years or for a period upto the date on which the deceased employee would have attained the age of sixty five years had he survived whichever is less;
(ii) In the event of death of an employee after retirement, the family pension as determined under clause (a) of this sub-regulation shall be payable for a period of seven years or for a period upto the date on which the retired deceased employee would have attained the age of sixty five years had he survived, whichever is less;
"Provided that in no case the amount of family pension determined under this clause shall exceed the pension authorised on retirement from the Bank. If the pension authorised to the employee on his retirement is less than the amount of family pension at the ordinary rates, then, the family shall be allowed family pension at the ordinary rates."
Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-clause, "Pension authorised on retirement" includes part of the pension, which the retired employee might have commuted before death.
(b) (i) Where an employee, who is governed by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), dies while in service after having rendered not less than seven years' continuous service, the rate of family pension payable to the family shall be equal to fifty per cent of the pay last drawn or one and half times the family pension admissible under sub-regulation (1), whichever is less;
(ii) The family pension so determined under sub-clause (i) shall be payable for the period mentioned in clause (a);
(c) after the expiry of the period referred to in clause (a), the family, in receipt of family pension under that clause or clause (b) shall be entitled to family pension at the rate admissible under sub-regulation (i).
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulation where the family of a deceased employee opts for pension in accordance with sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 3 or is governed by the provision contained in sub-regulation (6) or (7) or (8) of Regulation 3, such family of the deceased shall be eligible for family pension under these regulations."
The period for which Family Pension is to be granted is governed by Regulation no.40.
Thus, from the analysis of the Regulation, it is clear that the pension as defined under Regulation 2(t) is payable in respect of the employees who have exercised the option as stipulated in Regulation 3(b), however, the entitlement to family pension is without prejudice to the other provisions, as contained in the Regulation.
There is no stipulation in the Chapter VII circumcising the entitlement of the family pension only in respect of the persons who have exercised the option as prescribed in Regulation 3, which relates to pension. The said interpretation also gains weight from the definition of pension as defined under the Regulations 2(t) which does not include the 'Family Pension'. Therefore, even on a plain reading of Regulations, it is clear that the entitlement of the 'Family Pension' would flow without prejudice to the provisions contained in the Regulations particularly Regulation 3.
The argument of the counsel for the respondents would have been accepted if the definition of Pension as defined under Regulation 2(t) would have include the Family Pension also. The said argument is also not acceptable as the phrase 'without prejudice to the provisions contained in this Regulations as specified in Regulation 39' clearly makes the entitlement of Family Pension over and above the Pension as defined under section 2(d) of the Regulations. The Regulation being a beneficial piece of subordinate legislation has to be interpreted liberally as the same is aimed for the welfare of the employees.
Thus, on the interpretation of the Regulations as recorded above, there is no reason why the respondents bank will not pay the benefit of Family Pension to which the petitioner is entitled in terms of the Regulation 39.
At this stage, the counsel for the respondents bank states that the quantum of Family Pension for which the petitioner would be entitled would be governed by the Regulations 39 (b) (a) (i) of the Regulations 1995.
I am not going into the said question at this stage as the same has to be calculated in terms of the mandate of Appendix III read with Regulation 39(b)(a)(i) and for a period as specified in Regulation 40.
Thus, the writ petition is allowed holding that the petitioner is entitled to payment of Family Pension. The Respondents Bank shall now proceed to compute the benefits flowing from the Regulation 39, Appendix III and for period specified in Regulation 40. The arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within four months from today.
Order Date :- 6.2.2023 VNP/-