Bombay High Court
Mrs. Neela Arun Mohile vs Vijaya Bank on 28 April, 2009
Author: P.B. Majmudar
Bench: P.B. Majmudar, R.M. Savant
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1103 OF 2001
1. Mrs. Neela Arun Mohile )
adult, Occupation housewife, )
residing at C-301, Green Lawn, Kapad )
Bazar Road, Mahim, Mumbai-400v 016 )
2. Mrs. Vaishali Vaijanath Vaze, adult, )
occupation - housewife, residing at )
2, Parimal, 80 Dr. M.B.Raut Road,
ig )
Shivaji Park,Dadar, Mumbai-400 028 )
3. Shri Anil Sanjeeva Hegde, adult, )
occupation - retired, residing at 14/220 )
Adarsh Nagar, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025)..Petitioners
versus
Vijaya Bank, a nationalised Bank, through )
its Regional Manager, having office at Vikas )
Centre, S.V.Road, Santacruz (West), )
Mumbai. )..Respondent
Mr. V.P.Vaze for the petitioners.
Mr. R.S. Pai, instructed by M/s. Haresh Mehta & Company, for the
respondent.
CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR &
R.M. SAVANT
, JJ.
DATE: APRIL 28 & 29, 2009
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.):
By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent to give them the benefit of increase of five years in their ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:33:34 ::: -2- respective qualifying service for fixation of the Pension in terms of Regulation No. 29 of the Vijaya Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, hereinafter referred to as "the Pension Regulations, 1995".
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein had applied for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme framed by the said Bank. The petitioners received monetary benefits under the said scheme and subsequently has challenged the decision of the Bank in not giving them benefit of five years under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995. It is required to be noted that the petitioners have been informed by letter dated 30th December, 2000 (a copy of which is annexed at Exhibit-A to the petition), that the applications submitted for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme had been accepted by the competent authority and that the petitioners had been relieved from the services of the Bank at the close of office hours today, subject to clause 11.7.0 of the Vijaya Bank (Employees) Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000. This fact was communicated to the petitioners vide H.O. Circular No. 231/2000 dated 23rd November, 2000. The petitioners were also informed that their applications were considered under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2000, and that they are not eligible for addition of five years/remainder of service whichever was lower for the purpose of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:33:34 ::: -3- determining pension as well as commutation of pension as available under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995. It is not in dispute that subsequently the petitioners had taken the benefit under the said scheme and the payment had admittedly been received by the petitioners under the voluntary retirement scheme somewhere in 2001.
3. Mr. Vaze, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per clause 7 of the Vijaya Bank (Employees) Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 (hereinafter "the scheme of 2000"), the petitioners were also entitled to have benefit of Regulation 29 of the Regulations, 1995.
The petitioners have already completed 20 years of qualifying service on the relevant day when the VRS was floated. Clause 7 of the scheme of 2000 reads as under:
"7. Employees eligible to seek voluntary retirement under this Scheme and also eligible to seek voluntary retirement under Regulation 29 of Vijaya Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 shall give notice of seeking voluntary retirement under the said Regulations by indicating to that effect specifically in the application seeking voluntary retirement under this scheme."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:33:34 ::: -4-
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the declaration clause, wherein clause 5 provides that an employee has to mention that he is taking voluntary retirement under Regulation 29 of the Regulations, 1995 and requests the authority to waive the requisite notice of 3 months for seeking voluntary retirement under the said Regulations.
Relying on the said scheme, it is submitted by Mr. Vaze that as per the scheme floated by the Bank, an employee who has completed 20 years of qualifying service is entitled to pensionary benefits under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995.
5. Clause 29 (5) of the said Regulations provides that the qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this Regulation shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation. Relying on clause 7 of the Retirement Scheme, 2000, as well as declaration clause provided under the said Scheme as also Regulation 29 of the Regulations, 1995, it is submitted by Mr. Vaze that since these petitioners were entitled to get pension even under the Regulation as they had completed 20 years of qualifying service, they are entitled to get benefit of addition of five years ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:33:34 ::: -5- service to qualifying service for pension to those who have had completed 20 years of service.
6. Mr. Pai, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that the petitioners having taken advantage of the benefit under the voluntary retirement scheme, which is a special scheme, cannot bank upon Regulation 29 of the Regulations, 1995 which applies in the case of other type of retirement which is available only at the time of superannuation of an employee.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and we have also gone through the necessary documents, Scheme as well as the Regulations framed by the Bank.
8. Initially, we had dictated the judgment in open court yesterday but before it was transcribed, we came across the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India and another vs. K. Mohandas and others 2009 (4) Scale 576. In view of the said judgment, we notified the matter again with a notice to both the learned Counsel and today again the matter is heard regarding applicability of the latest judgment of the Supreme Court to the facts of the case at hand.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:33:34 ::: -6-That is how the matter is again taken up for hearing today. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court, inter alia, held as under:
"We hold, as it must be, that the employees who had completed 20 years of service and were pension optees and offered voluntary retirement under VRS 2000 and whose offers were accepted by the Banks are entitled to addition of five years of notional service in calculating the length of service for the purposes of that Scheme as per Regulation 29 (5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. The contrary view expressed by some of the High Courts do not lay down the correct legal position.
54. The only question now remains to be seen is whether the concerned employees are entitled to interest on unpaid pension.
55. Although it has been held by us that the subject employees are entitled to the weightage in terms of Regulation 29 (5) of Pension Regulations, 1995, but we are satisfied that any award of interest on unpaid pension would not be in the interest of justice. It is so because different High Courts did not have unanimous judicial opinion on the issue. Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court upheld the contention of the employees with regard to applicability of Regulation 29 (5) to the optees who had completed 20 years of service while the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and a single Judge of the Kerala High Court took exactly an opposite view. The stance of the banks, although found not meritorious, cannot be said to be totally frivolous. We, accordingly, hold that the subject employees are not entitled to interest on unpaid pension."
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:33:34 ::: -7-9. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is required to the allowed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioners are entitled to the benefit of five years under Regulation 29 (5) of the Regulations, 1995. Whatever benefits the petitioners are entitled to, the same shall be paid to them within three months from today. However, the petitioners shall not be entitled to interest on such amount. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.
R.M. SAVANT, J.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:33:34 :::