Madras High Court
V.Subramaniam vs The Central Bank Of India on 11 June, 2012
Author: Elipe Dharma Rao
Bench: Elipe Dharma Rao, M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.6.2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal No.2320 of 2003 with WAMP.No.3413 of 2003 and Writ Petition No.2905 of 1996 W.A.No.2320 of 2003: V.Subramaniam ... Appellant Vs. The Central Bank of India, represented by its Managing Director, Plot No.C-6, Block-E, V Floor, Bandra-Kurla complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ... Respondent W.P.No.2905 of 1996: N.C.Vijayaraghavan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Union of India, rep.by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Insurance Division, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi-110003. 2.General Insurance Corporation of India, rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director, 117, Jamshedji Tata Road, Church Gate, Bombay-400020. 3.United India Insurance Co.Ltd., rep.by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, 24, Whites Road, Madras-600014. ... Respondents * * * Writ Appeal No.2320 of 2003 has been preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, as against the order of the learned single Judge dated 21.2.2003, made in W.P.No.6485 of 2001. Writ Petition No.2905 of 1996 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring Clause 22 of the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme 1995 as illegal and unconstitutional insofar as it forfeits the entire past service of an employee on resignation and consequently direct the third respondent herein to pay the petitioner full pension as in the case of voluntary retirement, in accordance with the Scheme, with interest, with effect from 1.11.1993. * * * Appearance in W.A.2320/2003: For appellant : Mr.S.Ayyathurai For respondent : Mr.C.Karthick for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co Appearance in W.P.2905/1996: For petitioner : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for M/s.Row & Reddy For R.1 : Mr.G.Arul Murugan, ACGSC For R.2 : Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar for M/s.Aiyar & Dolia * * * COMMON JUDGMENT
ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.
Whether an employee of a Bank/Insurance Company, who tendered his 'resignation' to the services of the organisation, is entitled to pension under the respective Pension Regulations, as if he had 'voluntarily retired' from service is the question involved in both these matters.
2. Since the legal question involved in both the matters is same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The appellant in W.A.No.2320 of 2003 is a retired Officer of the respondent Bank. He, having served the respondent Bank in different capacities from 3.9.1956, has submitted his resignation in September, 1986, which was accepted by the Management and he was relieved on 3.9.1986 and all terminal benefits, payable as per the then existing rules, were settled on him. Thereafter, the Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 came into force, with retrospective effect. According to Regulation 3 of the same, the benefits of payment of pension are applicable to employees, who were in service on or after 1.1.1986, but retired before 1.11.1993. According to the respondent Bank, an employee, who was in service after 1.1.1986, but retired before 1.11.1993 alone could exercise the option for drawing pension, provided such an option is exercised within the time stipulated and refunds the amount received towards Bank's contribution.
4. After coming into being of the above said Regulations, the appellant has submitted his representation to the respondent Bank, claiming pension, under the above said Regulations. But, the respondent Bank, rejected the said claim of the appellant on the ground that the said Regulations provide pensionary benefits to all employees who retired after 1.1.1986, either after attaining superannuation or voluntarily and the said benefit is not available to the persons who resigned their services. Since the respondent/Bank has drawn source from Regulation 22 of the said Regulations to reject his claim, the appellant has come forward to file W.P.No.6485 of 2001 before this Court, praying to declare Regulation No.22 of the Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 as null and void, insofar as it disentitles the employees who resigned, to pension and to direct the respondent Bank to pay pension to him. As a learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed the said writ petition, by the order dated 21.2.2003, the petitioner therein has come forward to file this appeal.
5. Similar is the factual situation in W.P.No.2905 of 1996. In this writ petition, the petitioner joined as Junior Officer (General Insurance) in the Life Insurance Corporation of India on 13.6.1964 and thereafter his services were statutorily transferred to United India Insurance Company Limited. According to the petitioner, within a short span of about ten years (from 1976 to 1987) he was transferred seven times and though some of the transfers were coupled with promotions, it affected his family and hence, while working as Assistant General Manager, Calcutta, he resigned from the services of the third respondent w.e.f. 1.4.1987. Thereafter, on 28.6.1995, the Government of India, by a notification in the official gazette published the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995, w.e.f. 1.11.1993. However, as per Regulation 3(1)(a) of this Scheme, the Scheme shall apply to employees, who were in the service of the Corporation on or after the first day of January, 1986 but had retired before the first day of November, 1993 and exercise an option in writing to be exercised within the stipulated time and refunds the Corporation's contribution to Provident Fund, including interest accrued thereon. Pursuant to publication of the said Scheme, the petitioner has submitted a letter to the respondent/Management to grant him the pension, as per the above said Scheme, but there was no reply to him. According to the petitioner, when he made enquiries, he learnt from the officers of the third respondent that he will not be paid pension on account of Clause 22 of the Pension Scheme, which entails forfeiture of service on resignation/dismissal/removal/termination or compulsory retirement of an employee from service. Therefore, he has come forward to file this writ petition, praying to declare the said Clause of the Scheme as null and void. According to the petitioner, when he left the service in March, 1987, there was no provision for voluntary retirement on completion of 20 years of service, and therefore, he has to necessarily choose only resignation. According to him, inasmuch as the Scheme dos not take into account the prevailing situation for cessation of service before introduction of the provisions for voluntary retirement, on completion of 20 years of service, the same is irrational.
6. As stated above, since the legal question involved in both these matters is common, they are heard together. Except that the names of both the Schemes/Regulations are different, the provisions in both the Schemes are pari materia.
7. There is no denying of the fact that in both these cases, the employees have resigned their services.
8. For better understanding, we shall now extract hereunder Regulation 22 of the Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (which is under challenge in W.A.No.2320 of 2003):
"22. Forfeiture of service:
(1) Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits."
9. As already stated supra, except for difference in the nomenclature, both the Pension Schemes are pari materia. However, to erase any doubt, we now extract hereunder Clause 22 of the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995 (which is under challenge in W.P.No.2905 of 1996):
"22. Forfeiture of service:-
Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination or compulsory retirement of an employee from the service of the Corporation or a Company shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits."
10. According to employees in both these cases, the above provisions, inserted into the Pension Schemes, are illegal, for the reason that distinguishing the persons retired voluntarily and the persons resigned their positions, is irrational.
11. The Honourable Apex Court in UCO BANK AND OTHERS vs. SANWAR MAL [(2004) 4 SCC 412], has considered the validity of Regulation 22 of the UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, which is similar to the present impugned provision and has settled the entire issue, by distinguishing 'resignation' and 'retirement', in no uncertain terms, as follows:
"6. To sum up, the Pension Scheme embodied in the regulation is a self-supporting scheme. It is a code by itself. The Bank is a contributor to the pension fund. The Bank ensures availability of funds with the trustees to make due payments to the beneficiaries under the Regulations. The beneficiaries are employees covered by Regulation 3. It is in this light that one has to construe Regulation 22 quoted above. Regulation 22 deals with forfeiture of service. Regulation 22(1) states that resignation, dismissal, removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. In other words, the Pension Scheme disqualifies such dismissed employees and employees who have resigned from membership of the fund. The reason is not far to seek. In a self-financing scheme, a separate fund is earmarked as the Scheme is not based on budgetary support. It is essentially based on adequate contributions from the members of the fund. It is for this reason that under Regulation 11, every bank is required to cause an investigation to be made by an actuary into the financial condition of the fund from time to time and depending on the deficits, the Bank is required to make annual contributions to the fund. Regulation 12 deals with investment of the fund whereas Regulation 13 deals with payment out of the fund. In the case of retirement, voluntary or on superannuation, there is a nexus between retirement and retiral benefits under the Provident Fund Rules. Retirement is allowed only on completion of qualifying service which is not there in the case of resignation. When such a retiree opts for self-financing Pension Scheme, he brings in accumulated contribution earned by him after completing qualifying number of years of service under the Provident Fund Rules whereas a person who resigns may not have adequate credit balance to his provident fund account (i.e. bank's contribution) and, therefore, Regulation 3 does not cover employees who have resigned. Similarly, in the case of a dismissed employee, there may be forfeiture of his retiral benefits and consequently the framers of the Scheme have kept out the retirees (sic resigned) as well as dismissed employees, vide Regulation 22. Further, the pension payable to the beneficiaries under the Scheme would depend on income accruing on investments and unless there is adequate corpus, the Scheme may not be workable and, therefore, Regulation 22 prescribes a disqualification to dismissed employees and employees who have resigned. Lastly, as stated above, the Scheme contemplated pension as the second retiral benefit in lieu of employers' contribution to contributory provident fund. Therefore, the said Scheme was not a continuation of the earlier scheme of provident fund. As a new scheme, it was entitled to keep out dismissed employees and employees who have resigned.
7. In the light of our above analysis of the Scheme, we now proceed to deal with the arguments advanced by both the sides. It was inter alia urged on behalf of the appellant Bank that under Regulation 22, category of employees who have resigned from the service and who have been dismissed or removed from the service are not entitled to pension, that the Pension Scheme constituted a separate fund to be regulated on self-financing principles, that prior to the introduction of the Pension Scheme, there was in existence a Provident Fund Scheme and the present Scheme conferred a second retiral benefit to certain classes of employees who were entitled to become the members/beneficiaries of the fund, that the membership of the fund was not dependent on the qualifying service under the Pension Scheme, that looking to the financial implications, the Scheme framed mainly covered retirees because retirement presupposed larger number of years of service, that in the case of resignation, an employee can resign on the next day of his appointment whereas in the case of retirement, the employee is required to put in a certain number of years of service and consequently, the Scheme was a separate code by itself, that the High Court has committed manifest error in decreeing the suit of the respondent inasmuch as it has not considered the relevant factors contemplated by the said Scheme and that the Pension Scheme was introduced in terms of the settlement dated 29-10-1993 between IBA and All-India Bank Employees' Association, which settlement also categorically rules out employees who have resigned or who have been dismissed/removed from the service.
8. Shri R.P.Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 1506 of 2003 inter alia urged that Regulation 22 to the extent it provides for forfeiture of service and disqualifying those who have resigned for pensionary benefits is an arbitrary and unreasonable classification and repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution, that Regulation 22 was contrary to the objects of the Pension Scheme embodied in the Regulations, that employees who have resigned after completing qualifying service contemplated by Regulation 14 were entitled to opt for pension as they were in a position to bring in their contribution of retiral benefits to their credit for having worked for a minimum service of 10 years in the Bank and that the respondent had worked for more than 10 years after which he resigned and, therefore, he fulfilled the qualifying service contemplated by Regulation 14 and consequently, he was entitled to the benefit of the Pension Scheme.
9. We find merit in these appeals. The words resignation and retirement carry different meanings in common parlance. An employee can resign at any point of time, even on the second day of his appointment but in the case of retirement he retires only after attaining the age of superannuation or in the case of voluntary retirement on completion of qualifying service. The effect of resignation and retirement to the extent that there is severance of employment (sic is the same) but in service jurisprudence both the expressions are understood differently. Under the Regulations, the expressions resignation and retirement have been employed for different purpose and carry different meanings. The Pension Scheme herein is based on actuarial calculation; it is a self-financing scheme, which does not depend upon budgetary support and consequently it constitutes a complete code by itself. The Scheme essentially covers retirees as the credit balance to their provident fund account is larger as compared to employees who resigned from service. Moreover, resignation brings about complete cessation of master-and-servant relationship whereas voluntary retirement maintains the relationship for the purposes of grant of retiral benefits, in view of the past service. Similarly, acceptance of resignation is dependent upon discretion of the employer whereas retirement is completion of service in terms of regulations/rules framed by the Bank. Resignation can be tendered irrespective of the length of service whereas in the case of voluntary retirement, the employee has to complete qualifying service for retiral benefits. Further, there are different yardsticks and criteria for submitting resignation vis-`-vis voluntary retirement and acceptance thereof. Since the Pension Regulations disqualify an employee, who has resigned, from claiming pension, the respondent cannot claim membership of the fund. In our view, Regulation 22 provides for disqualification of employees who have resigned from service and for those who have been dismissed or removed from service. Hence, we do not find any merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent that Regulation 22 makes an arbitrary and unreasonable classification repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution by keeping out such class of employees. The view we have taken is supported by the judgment of this Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India v. Cecil Dennis Solomon [(2004) 9 SCC 461]. Before concluding we may state that Regulation 22 is not in the nature of penalty as alleged. It only disentitles an employee who has resigned from service from becoming a member of the fund. Such employees have received their retiral benefits earlier. The Pension Scheme, as stated above, only provides for a second retiral benefit. Hence there is no question of penalty being imposed on such employees as alleged. The Pension Scheme only provides for an avenue for investment to retirees. They are provided avenue to put in their savings and as a term or condition which is more in the nature of an eligibility criterion, the Scheme disentitles such category of employees as are out of it."
12. This judgment of the Honourable Apex Court squarely applies to the cases on hand as the Honourable Apex Court has discussed a similar Scheme, threadbear and uphold a provision of law, which drew a line between the employees who have retired voluntarily and those who have resigned their services. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court, headed by one of us (Justice Elipe Dharma Rao) had occasion to consider the same aspect, also arising from the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995 (as in the case of W.P.No.2905 of 1996 herein) in W.A.No.756 of 2004, dated 29.6.2007 (UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. vs. R.RAGHUNATHAN AND ANOTHER) and following the dictum laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Uco Bank case, cited above, has upheld the contentions of the Insurance Company, dismissing the plea of the employee.
13. It is to be pointed out that by the time the appellant in W.A.No.2320 of 2003 has 'resigned' his services, Service Regulations were in force, the same having come into force from 1.7.1979. Regulation 19 of these Service Regulations provides for 'age of retirement' and Regulation 19(7) deals with voluntary retirement of officers before reaching the age of superannuation. Under Regulation 19(7)(a), an Officer/employee of the Bank may be permitted to retire voluntarily from the service of the Bank at any time, if he/she has completed 30 years of service as an Officer or has attained the age of 55 years, whichever happens earlier, after giving the Bank three months' notice in writing. But, admittedly, the appellant has not followed these provisions and has opted to resign his services. Therefore, he cannot claim any benefit under the Pension Regulations.
14. The petitioner in W.P.No.2905 of 1996 has contended that since there was no provision for voluntary retirement, he had no other option except to resign his services. It is also his contention that since within a short span (from 1976 to 1987) he was transferred seven times and though some of the transfers were coupled with promotions, it affected his family and hence, while working as Assistant General Manager, Calcutta, he resigned from the services of the third respondent w.e.f. 1.4.1987. It is not his case that he was transferred from one station to other, in violation of any statutory provision or the same was vitiated by malafides and such transfer orders have been passed by an incompetent authority.
15. No employee can contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Further, it is the specific admission of the petitioner himself that some of the transfers were coupled with promotions. Having accepted the promotions coupled with transfers, the petitioner never challenged any of the transfer order. Therefore, at this belated point of time, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take the stand that only because he was transferred frequently, he was forced to resign his services. When it is within his knowledge that there is no provision for voluntary retirement and that he has accepted the transfers coupled with promotions without ever challenging the transfer orders, now, he cannot take the stand that only because of frequent transfers he was forced to resign his services and therefore, he must be held to be eligible for pension under the Scheme.
16. On behalf of the employees in both the cases, the following judgments have been relied on:
1. J.K.COTTON SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS CO.LTD. vs. STATE OF U.P. [1991 (1) LLJ 39];
2. A.P.SRIVASTAVA (DEAD, BY LRs.) vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [(1995) 6 SCC 227];
3. BANK OF INDIA vs. INDU RAJAGOPALAN & OTHERS [2000-I-LLJ 1617] and
4. an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2768 of 2002, dated 10.12.2009 [C.P.KRISHNASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA AND THREE OTHERS]
17. In the first judgment cited above, dealing with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Honourable Apex Court has held that 'termination of service by acceptance of employee's resignation would not amount to retrenchment and resignation tendered due to duress or coercion is not resignation and refusal of right to employee to resign may amount to bonded labour'. In this case, the employee was forced to resign by the Management. Therefore, the Honourable Apex Court has held that such a resignation tendered by the employee due to duress or coercion is not at all a resignation and hence treated the said resignation as voluntary retirement, so as to entitle the employee to get all the benefits attached thereto. But, same is not the factual situation in the cases on hand. The employees were not at all forced by the Management to resign their posts. Therefore, this judgment of the Honourable Apex Court has no application to the cases on hand.
18. In the second judgment cited above, the Honourable Apex Court has held:
"If a temporary government servant who has rendered 20 years of service, is entitled to pension, if he voluntarily retires, there is no justification for denying the right to him when he is required to retire by the employer in the public interest as an order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and pension is a right of the employee for services rendered. Therefore, a temporary government servant would be entitled to pension after he has completed more than 20 years of service even if he is required to retire by the employer in exercise of power under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules."
19. This judgment of the Honourable Apex Court also has no application to the facts of the cases on hand, since it is not the case of voluntary retirement of the employee, but resignation of the employees from the services of the Management.
20. In the third judgment cited above, a Pension Scheme was framed in Banks with effect from November 1, 1993. However, the persons who took voluntary retirement were denied the option, while the employees who retired after January 1, 1986 were covered. High Court allowed the petition from employees and on appeal by the Banks, the Honourable Apex Court, holding that 'retirement includes voluntary retirement', has upheld the decision of the High Court. As could be seen, the question involved in this judgment is whether 'retirement' includes 'voluntary retirement'. The same is not the position with the cases on hand and the question involved in the cases on hand is the difference between 'resignation' and 'voluntary retirement'. Therefore, this judgment also has no applicable to the cases on hand.
21. In the fourth judgment cited above, a Division Bench of this Court, dealing with fixation of cut-off date (as 1.11.1993) in Regulation 33(1) of the Punjab National Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995, has held the same as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In this case, the employee was compulsorily retired as a measure of punishment and since the Provident Fund share of the employer was not paid to him, he challenged the decision of the employer on the ground that compulsory retirement falls within the ambit of 'retirement' under the Pension Scheme of the Bank and thus the subject matter of the issue was fixation of cut off date for eligibility to get pension. Same is not the position in the cases on hand. Hence, this judgment also has no application to the cases on hand.
22. For all the above discussions, we have no hesitation to hold that 'resignation' and 'retirement' stand on different footings, as has been well explained and distinguished by the Honourable Apex Court in Uco Bank case (supra) and both the employees herein having resigned their services cannot claim equality with the persons who retired/voluntarily retired from their services, so as to claim benefits under the Pension Schemes. The impugned provisions under the Pensions Scheme/Regulation, mandating forfeiture of service on resignation, are well within the bounds of well established principles of law and cannot, under any circumstance, be called as either arbitrary or violative of the Constitution. Hence, we find no merit in these matters.
In the result, both these matters are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WAMP.No.3413 of 2003 is also dismissed.
Rao To The Secretary to the Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Insurance Division, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi 110 003