Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Bank Of Patiala vs Pritam Singh Bedi And Others on 9 January, 2009
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Jitendra Chauhan
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 6 attaining 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