Allahabad High Court
Subhash Babu Katiyar vs Aryavart Bank, Head Office Through Its ... on 7 February, 2020
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 7 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 107 of 2020 Appellant :- Subhash Babu Katiyar s/o Sukkhu Lal Katiyar, resident C Road, Gandhiganj, Karvi, District Chitrakoot Respondent :- Aryavart Bank, Head Office A-2/46, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010 through its Chairman and 2 others Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Kumar Chaurasia Counsel for Respondents :- Amrish Sahai Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Per: Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J.
This Special Appeal arises in respect of a judgment and order dated 6th January, 2020, rendered by a learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.- 11494 of 2019 (Subhash Babu Katiyar Vs. Aryavart Bank, Lucknow, and three others). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition for reasons stated therein.
This Special Appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner.
In the facts of the instant case, the appellant-writ petitioner was initially appointed to the post of a Field Supervisor in the Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank. While working as such, in the year 1991, he was accorded designation of a Junior Management Grade-I officer. He submitted a resignation letter dated 21st December, 2015, which was rejected by an order dated 18th March, 2016, passed by the Regional Manager, Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank, Banda. The Chief Manager, Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank, Banda, further sent a communication dated 31st August, 2016, to the effect that it was open for the appellant-writ petitioner to submit a fresh resignation. On 9th December, 2016, the appellant-writ petitioner submitted a fresh resignation letter, which was accepted and he was relieved from his duties vide order dated 22nd February, 2017, passed by the Regional Manager, Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank. With effect from 1st April, 2019, two regional rural banks, namely, Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank and Gramin Bank of Aryavart, have been amalgamated and renamed as "Aryavart Bank", having its Head Office at Lucknow.
The writ petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 2019 challenging inter alia Regulation 20 of the Aryavart Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 2018, as well as the scheme of clause 1.7 of the Pension Scheme of 2018, both of which came into effect on 7th December, 2018.
The learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions of the parties including the relevant regulations and clauses and proceeded to observe as follows:-
"21. A careful perusal of the said provisions indicates that both the above regulations namely Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank Pension Regulation and Aryavart Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 2018 provide for forfeiture of past services of an employee who has resigned from services of the bank and that he shall not qualify for pension under the regulations, consequently. Clause 1.7 of Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 2018 and Regulation 20 of the Aryavart Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations while excluding discontinuance of service on account of voluntary retirement provides that resignation, dismissal, removal or termination of an employee shall entail forfeiture of his entire services which shall not qualify for pension under the regulations.
22. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the aforesaid scheme and states that the Pension scheme, 2018 has illegally been made applicable with retrospective effect and is available to all those employees who had retired between 1.9.1987 to 31.3.2010 from the services of the Bank, when the scheme was not in vogue, subject to them giving option to seek coverage of the scheme.
23. The contention is that the petitioner having worked during the aforesaid period and having submitted option form within the time prescribed under the Pension Regulations, 2018 cannot be denied benefit of the scheme.
24. The submission is that the petitioner has put in 32 years of continuous service in the respondent bank and his voluntary act of leaving services of the bank after such a long stint was on account of adverse medical conditions. The resignation letter dated 23.11.2016 filed with the rejoinder affidavit has been placed to state that reading of its content would demonstrate that the petitioner had expressed his inability in discharging work of the bank on account of his adverse physical conditions and family circumstances. Further, at the point of time when the petitioner tendered his resignation, i.e. on 23.11.2016, there did not exist any forfeiture clause. Thus, there was no question of the petitioner having knowledge of the fact that his resignation from service would result in forfeiture of his entire past services. Had it been so, the petitioner would not have resigned and as such applying the forfeiture clause in the case of the petitioner would amount to giving retrospective effect to a penal provision, for which there can be no justification.................
.............32. It is, thus, clear that the scheme of pension in the Pension Regulations, 2018 is a contributory pension scheme and is on self-finance principles. The membership of the pension fund though is not dependent on any requisite number of period of service rendered by an employee who becomes member of the pension fund by just being born in service, but Clause 2 of the Scheme further provides for the eligibility criteria for payment of pension which reads as under:-
2. पेंशन की दरः
"2.1 पेंशन की पात्रता हेतु 33 वर्ष या उससे अधिक अर्हक सेवा पूर्ण करने के पश्चात् सेवा विनियमों या समझौते के उपबन्धों के अधीन सेवानिवृत्त होने वाले कार्मिकों की मूल पेंशन की रकम की संगणना उनके दस माह के औसत वेतन पर 50 प्रतिशत की दर से जायेगी। वेतन से अभिप्राय भविष्य निधि में अंशदान के लिये शामिल किये जाने वाले अवयवों से है।
2.2 पेंशन की पात्रता हेतु 33 वर्ष से कम किन्तु 10 वर्ष की अर्हक सेवा पूर्ण करने के पश्चात् सेवानिवृत्त होने वाले कर्मिकों को प्रो-राटा आधार पर पेंशन की रकम देय होगी।"
33. Thus, it can be seen that the clause 2.1 provides the rate at which pension would be payable to the eligible employees who had completed 33 years or more period of service. Whereas Clause 2.2 refers to the rate of pension which would be payable to the eligible employees having rendered less than 33 years of service but not less than 10 years of qualifying service.
34. The Pension Regulations, 2018, thus, clearly provides that all such employees who had retired by superannuation or on account of voluntary retirement would be entitled to pension subject to their eligibility under the scheme. However, pension would not be payable to those who have resigned or removed, dismissed or terminated from the services of the bank as past services, in such a case, would stand forfeited. A clear distinction has, thus, been drawn in the Pension Regulations in this regard. There is no ambiguity with regard to the retirement (either on superannuation or voluntary) being the condition precedent for grant of pension.
35. It is trite in the field of the statutory interpretation that where by liberal reading of the rule, no ambiguity is found in the language employed therein and the true impart of the rule can be given from its plain words, the Court would not add anything to it. The reading of the rule giving it a literal interpretation by plain and simple reading without adding any word to it is the first principle of statutory interpretation.
36. In service jurisprudence, the expressions "superannuation", "voluntary retirement", "compulsory retirement" and "resignation" convey different connotations. In the same rule namely clause 1.7, expressions like 'resignation'/'dismissal', 'removal' and 'termination' have been used. It is settled that when different expressions are used in the same rule in different context, then all of them cannot be given the same meaning [Reference: Kanhaiyalal Vishindas Gidwani vs. Arun Dattatray Mehta1 ]
37. In the instant case, the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are two folds; (i) first is that since Regulations, 2018 covers all those employees who had worked between 1.9.1987 to 31.3.2010, the benefit of pension cannot be denied to him as he has fulfilled requirement of submission of the option form and is ready to deposit the amount received by him towards provident fund under the then Employees Pension Scheme-1995; (ii) Second submission is that the condition that the resignation would amount to forfeiture of past services has been implemented for the first time by the Regulations, 2018 notified on 1.1.2019, the penalty of forfeiture of past services cannot be applied with retrospective effect. As there was no occasion for the petitioner to know that his resignation from service would entail such consequence, i.e. would disentitle him to the benefit of pension in future, the forfeiture clause cannot be invoked; (iii) Third submission is that the forfeiture clause of the Pension Rules, 2018 is in contravention of the fundamental principles of right to equality in service as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and thus, ultra vires the Constitution of India.
38. Insofar as the first and second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, they are self-defeating. What is material circumstance in the matter is that the petitioner herein had resigned. When the Pension Rules were promulgated on 1.1.2019, the petitioner was not in the category of a retired employee rather he was an employee who had resigned from service. The consequence of resignation being forfeiture of services in the Pension Rules, 2018, only those employees who had worked between 1.9.1987 to 31.3.2010 and retired whether on superannuation or voluntary, would only be entitled to pension. With the application of the Rules, 2018 in the case of the petitioner, it is crystal clear that he being an employee resigned from service would not be entitled to pension. In any case, on the relevant date when the petitioner took a conscious decision to disengage himself from the service of the bank, on the terms and conditions of service as prevalent on that date, the Pension Rule was not in existence. What could have happened in case of existence of the forfeiture clause or the pension rule at the time of resignation is not a circumstance, which in our view, would have any bearing on the present controversy. It cannot be accepted that had forfeiture clause been in existence, the petitioner would not have resigned from service knowing its repercussions. It is not possible for the Court to presume such a circumstance."
It appears that the learned Single Judge thereafter proceeded to decide the question of vires of the forfeiture clause of the Pension Rules, 2018, by referring to and relying upon a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others -vs-Shree Lal Meena2. This judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court takes into consideration the judgment which was sought to be relied upon by the appellant - writ petitioner rendered in the case of Shashikala Devi -vs- Central Bank of India and others3. The learned Single Judge proceeded to conclude her judgment in the following manner:-
"45. It was noted that the Pension Regulations had brought in the concept of "voluntary retirement" in the definition of "retirement", but had not considered it appropriate to bring in the concept of 'resignation'. It was held that Service jurisprudence recognising the concept of 'resignation' and 'retirement' as different and in the same provision/regulation, these expressions being used in different connotations left no room for doubt that the benefit could not be extended, especially as resignation was one of the disqualifications for seeking pensionary benefits under the Pension Regulations.
46. In view of the legal principles enunciated by the Apex Court in Senior Divisional Manager, the light of the forfeiture clause of the Pension Regulation as applicable to the employees of Life Insurance Corporation of India therein, which is pari materia to the relevant regulation 1.7 herein of the Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 2018 readwith Aryavart Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 2018, it is clear that the said decision squarely covers the issues raised herein.
47. Having analyzed different clauses of the Pension Rules, 2018 in the preceding paragraphs, it is evident that grant of pension under the said scheme is not permissible to an employee who had resigned from service. The forfeiture clause in the said Pension Regulations, 2018 would be attracted in case of all such employees who had resigned from service, whether prior to the promulgation of the Rules, 2018 w.e.f. 1.1.2019 or thereafter.
48. In view of the above discussions, all the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the vires of the forfeiture clause of the Pension Regulations, 2018 are found misconceived. Suffice it to reiterate that once the service jurisprudence itself recognizes the concept of 'resignation' and 'voluntary retirement' being different and in the same regulation 1.7, these expressions are used in different connotations, the principle of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India has no application.
49. In view of the above, both challenge to the Regulation 20 of the Aryavart Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 2018 being ultra vires and validity of the decision of the Chief Manager,Aryavart Bank, Head Office, Lucknow to deny pension to the petitioner, are hereby repelled. "
A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order - relevant portions whereof has been quoted above - reveals that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. The law on the subject was considered by the learned Single Judge and the issue has been dealt with exhaustively. In an Intra-Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 6th January, 2020.
The Special Appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and stands, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.2.2020 Deepak/Imroz (Biswanath Somadder,J.) (Dr. Y. K. Srivastava,J.)