Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chaman Singh vs Uco Bank & Others on 29 June, 2018
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 3082 of 2016
Date of decision: 27.06.2018.
.
Chaman Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
UCO Bank & others ...Respondents
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate.
For the Respondents
Coram
:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
. Yes.
Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
The moot question involved in this petition is whether the period of nine years, ten months and five days of service rendered by the petitioner can be rounded off to ten years so as to entitle him for the grant of pension?
2. However, before answering this question certain minimal facts need to be stated.
3. The petitioner initially served the Indian Army from 1973 to 1986 and was discharged from service on compassionate grounds.
Thereafter, on 10.06.2006, the petitioner was appointed as armed guard with the respondents at its branch at Kihar, where he joined as such on 26.06.2006. The petitioner retired from the service of the bank on 30.04.2016 after rendering nine years, ten months and five days of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2018 23:03:21 :::HCHP 2 service with the respondent bank. The request made by the petitioner for grant of pension was turned down by the respondents on the ground .
that he had not completed the minimum required service in the bank was, therefore, not eligible for pension.
4. Now adverting to the question posed in this petition, it would be noticed that respondent has framed UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short 'Regulations') and Chapter IV deals with qualifying service. Regulation No. 14 defines qualifying service as under:- r "14. Qualifying service-Subject to the other conditions contained in these regulations, an employee who has rendered a minimum of 10 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."
5. Whereas broken period of service of less than one year is defined in Regulation 18 and reads thus:
"18. Broken period of service of less than one year. - If the period of service of an employee includes broken period of service less than one year, then if such broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year and if such broken period is six months or less it shall be ignored."
6. A bare perusal of the provisions as extracted above would reveal that in order to entitle an employee for pension, he is required to render minimum ten years of service in bank on the date of his retirement. However, if the period of service of an employee includes broken period of service less than one year, then if such broken period ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2018 23:03:21 :::HCHP 3 is more than six months, it has to be treated as one year and if such broken period is six months or less it has to be ignored.
.
7. Obviously, the petitioner has rendered more than six months i.e. ten months and five day of service, therefore, this period in terms of Regulation No. 18 is required to be rounded and treated as one year, thus, making the petitioner eligible for pension.
8. As a matter of fact, the issue in hand is otherwise no longer res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank and another v. N. Venkatramani (2007) 10 SCC 609, wherein the qualifying service, as prescribed, was 15 years, whereas the respondent therein had sought voluntary retirement after rendering fourteen years, nine months and seventeen days of service. Similar provision of rounding off was contained in Regulation 18 of the Regulations, which is a pari materia with Regulation No. 18 of the instant case and while construing the said provision, it was observed in paras 9 and 13 as follows:-
"9. We may notice that although various provisions have been made providing for qualifying service to which our attention has been drawn by Mr. Raju Ramchandran, the manner in which the period of service is to be measured is contained in Regulation 18 of the Regulation which reads as under:-
"18. Broken period of service of less than one year. - If the period of service of an employee includes broken period of service less than one year, then if such broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year and if such broken period is six months or less it shall be ignored."
13. It may be true that various provisions of the Regulations as for example Regulations 16, 17, 19, 23, etc. provided for qualifying service. Regulation 18 is not controlled by any of the said provisions.
::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2018 23:03:21 :::HCHP 4It does not brook any restrictive interpretation. It only provides for a rule of measurement. An employee, as noticed hereinbefore, was entitled to pension provided he has completed the specified period .
of service. How such a period of service would be computed is a matter which is governed by the statute. It is one thing to say that a statute provides for completion of fifteen years of minimum service, but if a provision provides for measurement of the period, the same cannot be lost sight of. Provision of the Regulations which are beneficial in nature, in our opinion, should be construed liberally.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to cite any contrary judgment.
10. In view of the binding principles as quoted above, this Court has no alternate but to allow the petition. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitle to pension in terms of the Regulations. The respondents are directed to work out the pensionary dues of the petitioner and release the same within a period of two months from the receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date the amount fell due till the date the same is actually paid to him.
11. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan )
27 th
June, 2018 Judge
(sanjeev)
::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2018 23:03:21 :::HCHP