Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sapna Roy vs Union Bank Of India & Ors on 22 March, 2016
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
1
25 22.3.2016
M/L
W.P. 28477 (W) of 2015
gd
Sapna Roy
Vs.
Union Bank of India & Ors.
Mr. K.B.S. Mahapatra
Mr. Panchanan Let
Mr. Kasinath Bhattacharyya
..for the Petitioner
Mr. Ranjoy De
..for the Respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee ..for the Indian Banks' Association.
As much as the petitioner's case invokes the sympathy of the court, matters are not decided on such ground.
The petitioner served the respondent bank between the beginning of 1984 and April 28, 2007 when the petitioner was permitted to retire on the ground of total incapacitation.
Pursuant to a subsequent circular of August 27, 2010, the 2 petitioner sought to opt for pension thereunder but the petitioner was declined the pension on the ground that she had obtained voluntary retirement. The option for obtaining pension under the circular of August 27, 2010 was a result of a bipartite settlement with the workmen's unions of member banks of the Indian Banks' Association and officers' associations of such banks with the management thereof.
Clause 7 of the bipartite settlement specifies the classes of persons who would not be entitled to receive pension. Such persons are identified as "Employees/Officers who resigned, dismissed, terminated and compulsorily retired ...".
Regulation 19 of the 3 Officers' Regulations deals with all forms of retirement. The first proviso to Regulation 19(1) of the said Regulations pertains to voluntary retirement and forced retirement. Regulation 19(2) of the said Regulations pertains to those who are to be weeded out by early retirement. Nothing in Regulation 19 of the said Regulations covers a retirement on medical grounds.
If clause 7 was not contained in a bipartite
settlement but was part of any statute or rules framed under any statute, it would have failed the test of reasonableness for treating different classes of persons on the same basis without making any distinction on the basis of their conduct. Rule 7 of the bipartite settlement, in so far as it treats persons who had resigned on 4 being found completely incapacitated and persons who had been dismissed from service on the same footing, may have failed the test of reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution. However, since such rule is contained in a bipartite settlement which is a product of negotiations, the provision must be read somewhat differently than if it were in a statute or in any statutory rules. If all persons affected or likely to be affected by the settlement arrived at the settlement, whether through themselves or their authorised representatives, all conceivable situations must be deemed to have been considered before framing the terms of the settlement. In such a situation, there is very little scope to read 5 into a provision something which is not expressly provided for therein or read up or read down any clause.
Since the bipartite settlement has to be read as a contract and the rules of interpretation pertaining to a contract do not permit the construction that the petitioner seeks, the apparent injustice occasioned to the petitioner cannot be redressed. W.P. 28477 (W) of 2015 is disposed of without the petitioner being afforded any relief.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
6(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 7