Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ashis Roy vs The Chairman on 7 June, 2016
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
1
Sl. A 118
07.06.2016.
S.d.
W. P. 19762(W) of 2014
Ashis Roy.
-versus-
The Chairman, UBI and others
Mr. Sumit Ray
.....for the petitioner.
Ms. Soumoli Sanyal
..for the respondents.
This is another of the misconceived petitions that are carried to court on the encouragement of not incurring penal costs upon the exercise having discovered to be flippant.
The entire claim in the petition is founded on a judgment rendered by the High Court of Karnataka on April 18, 2012 in WP Nos. 24158-24160 of 2011 (C. Narasimhappa v. Vijaya Bank).
The essential facts relevant for the present purpose may be mentioned. The petitioner herein joined the service of United Bank of India in June, 1971 and he resigned with effect from January 31, 1995. It is the admitted position that at the time that the petitioner was employed, there was no provision for payment of pension to the employees of the bank. The pension provisions were introduced later 2 in 1995 and the United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 provide for the applicability of the regulations to employees who were in service of the bank on or after January 1, 1986 but had retired before November 1, 1993 and those who had retired on or after November 1, 1993 but before the notified date of sometime in September, 1995. The said regulations also contain a specific clause pertaining to forfeiture of service. Regulation 22(1) of the said regulations under Chapter IV, which is intituled as Qualifying Service, provides for the following :
"22. Forfeiture of service - 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 would not qualify for pensionary benefits;"
On the clear terms of the said regulations of 1995, the petitioner was not qualified to receive any pension upon the petitioner resigning with effect from January 31, 1995. That should have been the end of the matter.
The petitioner was obviously misguided on the strength of the Karnataka judgment that does not have any manner of application to the petitioner's case.
In the Karnataka case, the petitioners had joined in the clerical service of the bank between 1971 and 1982 and had resigned after completing 20 years of service. At the time that the petitioners in such matter resigned from service, their rights were governed by a bipartite settlement of 1993. Clause 5 of such settlement specified that 3 employees voluntarily retiring after 20 years of completed service would get a proportionate pension. Long after the petitioners in that case resigned, the 2010 Pension Rules were introduced in the bank. One of the clauses of 2010 Pension Rules provided that employees who resigned from service would not be entitled to pension. Upon the petitioners in that case applying for pension, the employer bank rejected it on the ground that the petitioners therein had resigned from service. Such rejection was seen by the court to be one under the 2010 Pension Rules and contrary to clause 5 of the 1993 settlement that governed the petitioners in that case as the petitioners had severed the relationship with the employer prior to 2010 Pension Rules coming into force.
It is childish to say that the facts in the Karnataka case are of any assistance to the petitioner. It is shameful that an attempt of this kind is made in the highest court of the State. The entire basis of the petition is flawed and misconceived and WP No. 19762 (W) of 2014 is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.25,000/-.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 4