Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hans Raj Monga, Ex-Manager, State Of ... vs Union Of India on 4 December, 2000
Author: N.K. Sud
Bench: M.L. Singhal, N.K. Sud
JUDGMENT N.K. Sud, J.
1. Petitioner had joined the Department of Agriculture as Agriculture Inspector on 19.5.1964. He was sent on the deputation to the State Bank of Patiala, respondent No. 2 (for short "the bank") on 23.5.1977 on the post of Technical Officer (Agriculture) on the usual terms and conditions of service. During his deputation the bank advertised the post of Technical Officer (Agriculture) Grade II. The petitioner applied for the said post and was duly selected. Accordingly he joined this post on 17.10.1978 after resigning from the Department of Agriculture. He was confirmed as Technical Officer (Agriculture) in the bank on 14.1.1980. He retired from service on 30.12.1997. Prior to his retirement he had made a representation to the bank on 13.1.1997 (Annexure P-2) claiming that a period of 13 years and one month be added to his 'qualifying-service while calculating his pensionary benefits in accordance with items 13 and 14 of the Pension Scheme circulated by the bank vide circular No. PRR/7 dated 24.5.1994. This representation was rejected by the bank vide letter dated 19.4.1997 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that none of the existing employees of the bank was eligible for the benefit of addition to qualifying service for pension. It is against this order dated 19.4.1997 that the present writ petition has been filed.
2. Before dealing with the claim of the petitioner it is necessary to note the relevant facts. The workman unions of various nationalised banks had been demanding the benefit of pension. For this purpose various meetings were stated to have been held between them and the Indian Banks Association which is a voluntary association of all the member banks. These meetings culminated into an agreement for introduction of a pension scheme in the member banks as a second retiral benefit in lieu of employees contribution towards Provident Fund. A draft of this scheme was prepared in November, 1993. Before this draft could be finalised into a scheme, the bank circulated it to all its employees vide circular No. PER/7 dated 24.5.1994 and even invited the option from the eligible employees as to whether they wanted to opt for pension or for employees contributory provident fund. In response to this circular, the petitioner also exercised his option in favour of pension.
3. Meanwhile the draft scheme underwent numerous amendments at the stage of discussion and finally culminated into the Slate Bank of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short "the Pension Regulations, 1995") which was duly approved by the Reserve Bank of India and notified in the official gazelle of India. These regulations were made effective from 29.9.1995.
4. It is in this background that the claim of the petitioner is to be considered. The claim of the petitioner made in his representation dated 13.1.1997 (Annexure P-2) for addition of 13 years and 1 month in his qualifying service towards the pensionary benefits was based on regulations 13 and 14 of the draft scheme which are reproduced below for ready reference :-
"13. Additions to qualifying service in special circumstances.
At bank's discretion an employee shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of pension) the actual period not exceeding one-fourth of the length of his service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded twenty-five years or a period of five years, which-ever is less, if the service or post to which the employee is appointed is one -
(a) for which post graduate research, or specialist qualification or experience in scientific, technological or professional fields, is essential;
(b) to which candidates of more than twenty-five years of age are normally recruited; and
(c) the candidate was given age relaxation on account of his possessing higher qualifications or experience over and above the maximum age limit fixed for candidates with the minimum qualifications/experience required for the post.
14. Provided that this concession shall not be admissible to an employee unless his actual qualifying service at the time he retires from the Bank's service on superannuation is not less than ten years.
NOTE:
The benefit of addition to qualifying service under the provisions of this Regulation is not available in the case of employees recruited in the bank on the basis of relaxation of age limit permitted under the Government guidelines.
Notes of Regulation 13 & 14.
The special dispensation is restricted to officers who have been appointed by relaxation of age beyond the age prescribed for the specialist posts considering the additional qualifications or experience over and above what is prescribed for the post. As such it is not available for specialists who are appointed as per normal eligibility."
It is clear that even as per the aforesaid provision the maximum period to be added in the qualifying service was Five years and that is why in the writ petition the petitioner has restricted his claim to five years only. It is also evident that when the representation had been made by the petitioner on 13.1.1997, the draft scheme after various amendments, had resulted in the introduction of the Pension Regulations, 1995 which had come into effect from 29.9.1995. In these regulations, the benefit of addition to the qualifying service was provided for in Regulation 26 which is reproduced below :-
"26. Addition to qualifying service in special circumstances :-
An employee shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of pension) the actual period not exceeding one fourth of the length of his service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded the upper age limit specified by the Bank for direct recruitment or a period of five years, whichever is less, if the service or post to which the employee is appointed is one:
(a) for which post graduate research, or specialist qualification or experience in scientific, technological or professional fields is essential; and
(b) to which candidates of age exceeding the upper age limit specified for direct recruitment are normally recruited;
(c) for which the candidate was given age relaxation over and above the maximum age limit fixed by the Bank on account of his possessing higher qualifications or experience.
Provided that this concession shall not be admissible to an employee unless his actual qualifying service at the time he quits the service in the bank is not less than ten years.
Provided further that this concession shall be admissible if the recruitment rules in respect of the said service or post contain specific provision that the service or post is one which carries benefit of this regulation:
Provided also that the recruitment rules in respect of any service or post which carries the benefit of this regulation shall be made with the approval of the Central Government."
5. Shri V.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of addition of five years to his qualifying service for the purpose of computation of his pensionary benefits in view of regulations 13 and 14 of the scheme of 1993. According to him his claim had been wrongly rejected by invoking the second proviso to regulation 26 of the Pension Regulations, 1995. He further submitted that it was on the basis of the 1993 scheme that the bank had invited the employees to exercise their option in favour of pension or the contributory provident fund vide its circular dated 24.5.1994 and the petitioner had exercised his option in favour of the pension scheme. It was. therefore, argued that the respondent bank could not now deny the benefit admissible to him under the 1993 scheme on the basis of provisions made in the Pension Regulations, 1995. This contention has been resisted by the respondent-bank on the ground that there was no pension scheme of 1993 and the scheme on which reliance was being placed was merely a draft scheme on the basis of which no benefit could be claimed. The only pension scheme framed by the bank was the Pension Regulations, 1995 and the benefit claimed by the petitioner had to be examined within the parameters provided in that scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the scheme circulated on 24.5.1994 was merely a draft of the pension scheme which was ultimately introduced as the Pension Regulations, 1995. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has no right to claim any benefit under the provisions of the draft scheme. The claim of the petitioner had rightly been examined under the provisions of the Pension Regulations, 1995. The counsel for the petitioner also conceded that in view of the 2nd proviso to Regulation 26 of the Pension Regulations. 1995, he was not entitled to the benefit being claimed by him. However, according to him. the petitioner has also sought the quashing of this proviso on the ground of the same being unreasonable. He explained that the benefit of additional period to be added to the qualifying service has been denied in this proviso to employees, whose service or post does not contain specific provision granting the benefit of this regulation. The petitioner claims that when he had joined the service of State Bank of Patiala there was no pension scheme in vogue and as such his service conditions could not possibly have carried the benefit of any additional period to be added in the qualifying service for the purpose of pension. The learned counsel for respondent on the oilier hand contends that whenever a scheme for granting a relief is framed, it has to be governed by certain rules and regulations. The relief envisaged in a scheme or a provision of the scheme is obviously meant to be restricted to those who fall within its ambit This would necessarily exclude some persons from claiming such benefit. The benefit of regulation 26 for addition to the qualifying service was meant for specific category of person and there was nothing unreasonable about restricting this to that category. He has also referred to a clarification issued by the Ministry of Finance on 6.8,1996. This communication, addressed to the Chief Executives of all public sector banks, clarifies that in view of the 2nd proviso to Regulation 26 none of the present employees of the bank were entitled to the benefit envisaged in that regulation. The banks had further been advised that if they wanted to extend this benefit to their future employees they may send proposal specifying the details of the post together with minimum qualification and experience, minimum age and the justification for providing this benefit for the consideration of the government and its approval. The learned counsel has also pointed out that upto now the respondent-bank has not sent any such proposal for approval of the Central Government. It is, therefore, contended that not only the employees who had been employed prior to the coming into force of the Pension Regulations, 1995, but also those employed thereafter are not entitled to the benefit of Regulation 26 of the Pension Regulations, 1995.
6. We are in agreement with the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent-bank. We find that there is nothing unreasonable in the 2nd proviso to regulation 26. It is an additional benefit sought to be granted to a certain categories of employees and admittedly the petitioner does not fall in that category. It may be mentioned that the pension scheme has been made applicable to the employees who retired from the bank on or after 1.1.1986. It, therefore, excludes employees who had retired prior to 1.1.1986. If the arguments of the petitioner were to be accepted the scheme would have to be quashed on the ground that it discriminates against the employees who had retired prior to 1.1.1986. The bank according to us is well within its right to formulate rules and regulations to give additional benefit to its employees and unless any illegality is pointed out this Court cannot interfere in the same. It is apparent that so far the bank does not propose to give the benefit of regulation 26 to its employees and that is why even upto this date it has not sent any such proposal to the Central Government for its approval as required by the 3rd proviso. The petitioner has not been able to show how he can claim this benefit as of right or in what manner the 2nd proviso is unreasonable. As already discussed, we find no infirmity or arbitrariness in the 2nd proviso to Regulation 26 of the Pension Regulation, 1995, and, therefore, we do not find any ground to quash the same.
In the result, we see no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
7. Petition dismissed.