Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shadi Lal Sharma vs Reserve Bank Of India And Others on 14 December, 2018
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
CWP No. 2618 of 2016
Reserved on: 27.11.2018
Decided on: 14.12.2018
Shadi Lal Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
Reserve Bank of India and others ...Respondents.
___________________________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes For the Petitioner: In person.
For the Respondents: Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Advocate. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
This writ petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs:
(i) That the impugned Circular dated 07.06.2016, Annexure P3 may kindly be quashed and setaside, by issuing writ of certiorari.
(ii) That sub para (2) of para 1 of impugned notification dated 28.08.2017 which fixes the date of operation of the amendment as 06.10.2017 may kindly be quashed and setaside as petitioned in paragraph No.23 of this petition.
(iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to refix the basic pension of the petitioner on the basis of 'last pay drawn' effective from 01.02.2013 and also pay 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 2 commuted value of pension on that basis (last pay drawn).
.
(iv) That the respondent Bank may kindly be directed to refund Rs.1,14,111/ (Rupees One Lac Fourteen Thousand One Hundred Eleven) recovered from the petitioner illegally without giving any notice."
2. The petitioner retired as an Assistant General Manager from the Reserve Bank of India, Chandigarh, Office on 31.01.2013 after putting in more than 32 years of service. At the time of retirement, the total emoluments of the petitioner as per the Administrative Circular No.4, dated 09.09.2010 for the purpose of basic pension was Rs.56,750/ and, therefore, the basic pension was fixed at Rs.28,375/ (before commutation of pension). The respondentBank vide Circular No.7 dated 11.4.2016 revised the upward pay and allowances of its employees with retrospective effect w.e.f. 01.11.2012. The petitioner vide letter dated 27.7.2016 was asked to give the details of the pension paid/payable or recoverable and also commuted value of pension paid and payable on the basis of the revised pay and allowances. At the same time, the petitioner's last emoluments/last pay drawn was refixed at Rs.1,05,600/, yet an amount of Rs.95,301/was fixed as an average pay for the purpose of refixation of basic pension and payment of commuted value of pension. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 3 denied the benefit of full pension as laid down under Regulation .
28 of the RBI Pension Regulations, 1990 (as amended in the year 2012) and had instead been relied entirely on average pay method of calculation of pension prescribed under the Regulation/ Rule No.28 read with Regulation No.2 of RBI Pension Regulations, 1990 and due to adoption of this method, the Bank has partially given the benefit of revision of pay and allowances i.e. only for three months i.e. November, December, 2012 and January, 2013 in the revised basic pension of the petitioner and his emoluments for the purpose of pension were refixed at Rs.95,301/(average pay) instead of Rs.1,05,600/ (last pay drawn). Due to this average pay method of calculation of pension, the respondentBank has decreased the monthly gross pension of the petitioner from Rs.54,117/ to Rs.52,068/ as on 30.06.2016 and has shown a cumulative recovery of Rs.1,14,111/ as an excess amount of pension paid to the petitioner between February, 2013 to June, 2016. This amount according to the petitioner already stands recovered from him, that too, without issuing any show cause notice.
3. It was further averred that the bank has not only re fixed the petitioner's monthly basic pension to his disadvantage, but also decreased commuted value of pension payable from Rs.9,59,183/ to Rs.7,56,351/ by application of average pay ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 4 method of calculation of pension and thus denied the benefit of .
full pension to the petitioner. However, during the pending disposal of this writ petition, the respondentBank issued a notification dated 28.08.2017 thereby notified amendment to Regulation 28 relating to 'last pay drawn' to the RBI Pension Regulations, 1990. This notification in fact would have completely redressed the grievances made by the petitioner, but then the operation thereof was made prospective from 06.10.2017 and did not apply to the employees of the respondentBank, who retired between the period 01.11.2012 and 05.10.2017, constraining the petitioner to file the instant petition.
4. The respondents have contested the petition by filing reply wherein various preliminary objections with regard to there being no cause of action, any violation of fundamental right, no case having been made out by the petitioner for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, there being a disputed question of fact, maintainability, petition being misconceived etc. have been raised. Thereafter, as many as four preliminary submissions have been made. However, these need not be noticed as the contents thereof in fact have been reiterated in the reply on merits. It is averred that the petitioner's pension was calculated after taking into account the 'average ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 5 emoluments' drawn by him from the month of April, 2012 to .
January, 2013 in terms of Regulation 2(2) and Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulations. The petitioner drew prerevised salary for 7 months i.e. from April 2012 to October, 2012 and revised salary only for 3 months i.e. from November, 2012 to January, 2013. The benefits of the pay revision as per the instructions contained in Circular dated 07.06.2016, were given to the petitioner for the period April, 2012 to October, 2012 during which he drew prerevised salary from the bank. Accordingly, his basic pension of Rs.28,375/ per month, which was calculated on prerevised salary, was raised to Rs.47,651/ per month after pay revision. The revised pension of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.47,651/ and the 2/3rd pension after commutation was fixed at Rs.31,768/ with effect from February, 2013. Further, the petitioner was paid Rs.52,068/ (pension Rs.31,768 + dearness relief of Rs.20,300) in June, 2016. The prerevised pension plus dearness relief for the month of June, 2016 was Rs.54,117/ (pension Rs.18,917/ + dearness relief of Rs.35,200/). The decrease in the pension is on account of the increase in commuted value of pension from Rs.9,458/ to Rs.15,883/ leading to increase in total commutation value of pension by Rs.7,56,351/. Thus, the cumulative recovery of pension from February, 2013 to June 2016 was Rs.1,14,111/. It is denied ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 6 that the respondent had refixed the petitioner's pension as last .
emoluments/last salary drawn at Rs.1,05,600/. It was further denied that the respondent had denied the benefit of full pension as laid down under Regulation 28 of RBI Pension Regulations, 1990, but amendment in the Regulations was brought about w.e.f. 12.01.2013. The petitioner retired on 31.01.2013 and was sanctioned proportionate pension for 32 years as per the then Regulation 28 of Pension Regulations. Thereafter, as per amendment in Regulation 28 of Pension Regulations, the petitioner was given the benefit of full service w.e.f. February, 2013. It is further averred that the Central Government accorded approval to the Bank's proposal for amendment of Regulation 28 of the RBI Pension Regulations, 1990 vide letter dated 31.3.2017 according to which the rate of basic pension would be 50% of the average emoluments or the 'last pay drawn', whichever is more beneficial to the employee and the same was notified in the official gazette on 28.8.2017. Accordingly, the present method of calculation of pension of an employee is 10 months average or the 'last pay drawn', which is more beneficial to the employee.
However, an Administrative Circular dated 26.10.2017 was issued by the respondents wherein in para2, it is clearly circulated that amendment would be applicable only to the employees retiring from the Bank's service on or after October 6, ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 7 2017. However, the same will not have any effect on the pension .
drawn by the employees prior to October 6, 2017.
5. The petitioner filed rejoinder wherein it has been averred that the respondentBank should have given effect to the stipulation/prescription contained in para5 of the RBI Pension Regulations, 1990 while issuing impugned circular dated 7.6.2016 as the Committee of CBODs in its meeting dated 5.10.2011 had already approved adoption of 'last pay drawn' method of computation of basic pension. Further, amendments to the existing Regulations of RBI Pension Regulations, 1990 are not governed by clause (j) of sub section (2) of Section 58 of the RBI Act, 1934 (for short 'Act'), but had to be dealt with in accordance with the instructions contained in Regulation No.5.
It is further claimed that cutoffdate fixed vide notification dated 28.8.2017 by the respondentBank is arbitrary, unfair, illegal and discriminatory.
6. The respondents have filed Surrejoinder reiterating the averments made in the reply and in addition thereto, it has been stated that cutoffdate in the impugned notification was fixed in terms of para7 of the proposal (memorandum submitted to CCB), wherein it is stated that with a view to restricting the financial implication, the amendments were proposed to be implemented with a prospective date so that the arrears are not ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 8 required to be paid and only future liabilities are accounted for.
.
The bank vide letter dated 19.1.2017 requested the Government of India to approve the proposal to amend Regulation 28 of RBI Pension Regulations, 1990 and the Ministry of Finance vide its letter dated 31.3.2017 accorded its approval. It has further been stated that while amending Regulations, the respondents have followed the procedure as envisaged under Section 58 of the RBI Act and accordingly Regulation 28 was amended by the Central Board of the respondentBank after obtaining the prior approval from the Central Government. In terms of sub section4 of Section 58 of the RBI Act, thereafter the Regulation was published in the Gazette of India dated 6.10.2017 to be laid on the table of both the Houses of the Parliament in October, 2017.
7. I have heard the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the petition alongwith the accompanying documents annexed with it and also the records of the case that was directed to be produced.
8. There can be no dispute that in matters regarding fixation of cutoffdates, the scope of interference of the Court is extremely limited. Cutoffdate is fixed by the executive authority keeping in view the economic conditions, financial constraints and many other administrative and other attending circumstances. This is within the domain of the executive ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 9 authority and the Court should not normally interfere with the .
fixation of the cutoffdate by the executive authority unless such order on the face of it appears to be blatantly arbitrary and discriminatory. The Government must be left with some leeway and free play at the joints in this connection. But that does not mean that the Court does not interfere even with the cutoffdate, is arbitrary or the reasons for fixing the cutoffdate, are otherwise bad in any justifiable reasons.
9. Adverting to the facts, it would be noticed that it was the respondentBank, who of its own had sought the amendment in the Regulation and in this context, it would be necessary to reproduce the letter dated January 19, 2017 addressed by the respondentBank to the Government of India wherein it had sought its approval and the same reads thus:
"RESERVE BANK OF INDIA www.rbi.org.in CO HRMD No.13440/21.01.00/201617 January 19,2017 Shri Sewa Ram Mehar The Deputy Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Financial Service Jeevan Deep Building Parliament Street New Delhi - 110001.
Dear Sir, RBI Pension Regulations, 1990 - Amendment to Regulation 28 Rate of basic pension at fifty percent of the last pay.::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 10
At present in terms of Regulation 28 of RBI Pension Regulations, 1990 the rate of basic pension is fifty per cent of the average emoluments (i.e. average of pay drawn by an employee during .
the last 10 months of his/her service) subject to a minimum of Rs.3,500/ per mensem. Due to this method, the employees who retire after drawing salary partly on prerevised scale and partly on revised scale during last 10 months of service draw basic pension at much lower rate compared to employees who retire after drawing salary on revised basic during last 10 months of service. The reduction in monthly pension depends on number of months they draw salary on revised pay scales. This has generated a lot of distress among the affected employees, several of whom have requested for review.
2. The RBI Pension Regulations have been framed on the lines of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In Government pension is calculated at 50% of the emoluments of the last month or average emoluments received during last 10 months, whichever is beneficial to the employees. Accordingly, Bank vide letter DO HRMD No.2851/21.01/201112 dated October 11, 2011 had forwarded a proposal to amend Regulation 28 of RBI Pension Regulations, 1990 as per Annexure.
3. As this will benefit only a few employees, the financial implication will be negligible. However, it will go long way in removing an anomaly which exists today. In view of this, Government is requested to kindly consider Bank's proposal to amend Regulation 28 of Pension Regulations as above and accord approval.
Yours faithfully Sd/ (Ramesh Iyer) Assistant General Manager, Encl: As above."
10. Now, in the teeth of what is contained in para3 of the letter (supra), it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to claim that since there was financial implications, therefore, they granted the benefit of this amended Regulation from the date of notification i.e. 6.10.2017, without granting benefit to ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 11 those employees, who retired between the period i.e. 01.11.2012 .
and 5.10.2017.
11. In addition thereto, it would be noticed that in response to the aforesaid letter dated 19.1.2017 seeking approval of the Government for amendment of the RBI Regulations with respect to the rate of pension at 50% of the average emoluments of last 10 months or last pay drawn, the proposal sent by the RBI was approved as such without any modification by the Government as is evident from the letter dated 31.3.2017, which reads thus:
Most Immediate "F.No.11/1/2017IR Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Financial Services Jeevan Deep Building Parliament Street New Delhi 110001 Dated, the March 31, 2017.
To CGM(HR) Reserve Bank of India, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai.
Subject: RBI Pension Regulations, 1990 - Amendment to Regulation 28 - Rate of basic pension at fifty percent of the last pay.
Sir, I am directed to refer to RBI's letter CO HRMD No.13440/21.01.00/201617, dated 19th Jan, 2017 and 20th March, 2017 seeking approval of the Government for amendment in RBI Pension Regulations w.r.t. the rate of basic pension at 50% of average emolument (of last 10 months) or the last pay drawn whichever is more beneficial to the employee.::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 12
2. The said proposal was examined in the Department in consultation with D/o Expenditure and it has been .
decided to convey the approval on the same.
3. This has the approval of competent authority.
Yours faithfully, Sd/ (Manish Kumar) Under Secretary to the Government of India."
12. In addition to the aforesaid, it may be noticed that there was no contemporaneous official record placed before this Court with regard to the actual financial implications in case the amendment in the Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulations was to be brought about from 3.10.2011. Even during the course of hearing, the respondents had to candidly admit that no such data was in fact available with the Bank and therefore there was no question for placing the same before the Board etc.
13. Thus, what stand established on the record is that the reasons assigned for applying the Regulations with effect from prospective date are not borne out from the records and are further not substantiated by any contemporaneous official record. Once that be so, then the decision to enforce the amended Regulation No. 28 prospectively i.e. unilaterally rather arbitrary.
14. Lastly and more importantly, the aforesaid Pension Regulations, 1990 could be framed only under Clause (j) of sub ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 13 section (2) of Section 58 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, .
which reads thus:
"58.(2) (j) The constitution and management of staff and superannuation funds for the officers and servants of the Bank."
15. The Pension Regulations so framed were admittedly after sanction of the Central Government and as observed above, the Central Government had approved the amendment of the RBI Regulations as it is as was proposed by the respondent vide its letter dated 19.1.2017.
16. It is more settled that Regulations once framed cannot be amended or altered by administrative circular.
Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the three Judges Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.T. Khanzode and others vs. Reserve Bank of India and another AIR 1982 SC 917, wherein it was observed as under:
"23. Having seen that the Central Board has the power to provide for service conditions of the staff by issuing administrative circulars, the next question for consideration is whether the Staff Regulations of 1948 were issued under Section 58 of the Act. The importance of this question lies in the fact that, quite clearly, if the 1948 Regulations are statutory, they cannot be altered by administrative circulars and, in that event, the impugned circular will not have the effect of superseding them.::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 14
Having considered the entire material on this subject, including the correspondence that has transpired between .
the Reserve Bank and the Central Government, we find it difficult to take the view that the Staff Regulations of 1948 were framed in the exercise of power conferred by Section
58. One fact which stands out in this regard is that whereas Section 58 (1) envisages the making of regulations"with the previous sanction of the Central Government", the Regulations of 1948 do not purport to have been made with such sanction. Indeed, in so far as the ex facie aspect of the matter is concerned, the Regulations of 1948 do not purport to have been made under Section 58 at all. It is true that this by itself is not conclusive because, failure to mention the source of power cannot invalidate the exercise of power, if the power is possessed by the authority which exercises it. But, the common course of the manner in which the Central Board exercises its power when it purports to do so under Section 58 is not without relevance and has an important bearing on the question under consideration. The Employees' Provident Fund Regulations of 1935, the Note Issue Regulations of 1935 the General Regulations of 1949, the Scheduled Banks' Regulations of 1951 and the Guarantee Fund Regulations,which were all framed under section 58, contain a preamble reciting that they were framed under that section and that they were framed with the previous sanction of the Central Government. By way of illustration, we may cite the preamble of the Reserve Bank of India General Regulations, 1949, which runs thus:
"In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 58 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (II of 1934) and in supersession of the Reserve Bank of India ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 15 General Regulations, 1935, the Central Board of the Reserve Bank of India, with the previous .
sanction of the Central Government, is pleased to make the following Regulations..."
It is significant that such a recital is conspicuously absent in the Regulations of 1948. That renders it safe and reasonable to accept the statement contained in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Reserve Bank by Shri Shamrao Laxman Jathar Deputy Manager in the Department of Administration and Personnel to the effect that the Staff Regulations of 1948 are not statutory in character, not having been made under Section 58 of the Act of 1934. The rejoinder affidavit dated July 16, 1979 filed on behalf of the petitioners by Shri Jamnadas Gupta reiterates the contention that the Regulations of 1948 were framed under Section 58 (1) with the sanction of the Central Government. Support is sought to that contention from the correspondence annexed to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the correspondence annexed to the rejoinder. Of particular importance is the statement contained in the 'Memorandum to the Central Board' dated January 21, 1949, submitted by the then Governor of Reserve Bank, Shri C.D. Deshmukh, on the subject of "Reserve Bank of India Regulations". That Memorandum contains a list of regulations which were made by the Central Board "with the approval of the Central Government". The very first item in the list is"Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations". Having considered the correspondence bearing on the subject and particularly the aforesaid Memorandum, we see no reason to doubt the contention of the Bank that the Regulations of 1948 were not framed under section 58 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 16 and that they were not made with the previous sanction of the Central Government. The then Governor of the .
Reserve Bank of India, Shri C. D. Deshmukh, a distinguished Economist and Civilian, was perhaps justified in assuming from the correspondence that the Central Government has no objection to the proposed regulations, which explains his statement, that they were made with the "approval" of the Central Government. But, it is one thing to infer that the Regulations had the approval of the Central Government since no objection was raised by it to the making of the regulations and quite another that they were made with its previous sanction. The supplementary affidavit dated March, 1980 which was filed on behalf of the Reserve Bank by Shri Pradeep Madhav Joshi, Deputy Manager in the Department of Administration and Personnel, has dealt fully with the correspondence on the subject of previous sanction of the Central Government to the Regulations of1948. We are inclined to accept the statement contained in paragraph 9 of the said affidavit that the Memorandum of January 21, 1949 contains a "factual mistake" to the effect that the Staff Regulations, (which would include the Regulations of 1948) were made with the approval of Central Government. We therefore conclude that the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations of 1948 were not made under Section 58 of the Act and that, in fact, the Central Board had not obtained the sanction of the Central Government to the making of those Regulations."
17. Therefore, once the Central Board recommended for changes in the Pension Regulations including the cutoffdate for ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 17 its implementation then sanction of the Central Government was .
mandatory because unless the recommendations for the amendment were approved, there is no binding force of such amendment. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of India and another vs. Cecil Dennis Solomon and another AIR 2004 SC 3196, wherein it was observed as under:
"8.... In Reserve Bank and Another v. S. Jayarajan (1995 rsupp(4) SCC 584) the view expressed in V.T. Khanzode and Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India and Anr. (1982 (2) SCC
7) was reiterated that the Staff Regulations are administrative in nature. The Central Board is authorized to take such administrative decisions and Central Government's approval/decision is not necessary.
Therefore, if changes were to be introduced in the Staff Regulations and the Central Board takes a decision, there would not be any necessity for taking approval of the Central Government. But the position is different so far as the Pension Regulations are concerned. The said Regulations were framed with the sanction of the Central Government and are framed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (j) of subsection (2) of Section 58. If the Central Board recommended for changes in the Pension Regulations, sanction of the Central Government is mandatory. This aspect seems to have been lost sight by the High Court and the respondents cannot derive any advantage from the mere recommendations made by the Central Board suggesting changes to the Regulations. The Central Government has specifically dealt with the ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 18 recommendations and has turned them down. Unless the recommendations for the amendment are approved, they .
have no binding force or application to make any claim thereon. Further, the respondents who claim that they were not claiming the benefit under the Pension Regulations could not point out any other source to which their claims could be linked. The respondentsemployees were getting superannuation benefits accruing to them under the contributory provisions and gratuity schemes. The High Court was also in error in equating the case of resignation to voluntary retirement. The two are conceptually different in the service jurisprudence and different consequences would flow depending upon one or the other of the courses."
18. Thus, what is evident from the aforesaid discussion is that the respondentBank vide its letter dated 19.1.2017 had itself requested the Central Government to accord approval in the amendment of Regulations 28 which at the relevant time provided for basic pension of 50% of the average emoluments (i.e. average of pay drawn by an employee during the last 10 months of his/her service) subject to a minimum of Rs.3,500/ per mensem. According to the respondent by implementing this method, the employees who retire after drawing salary partly on prerevised scale and partly on revised scale during last 10 months of service draw basic pension at much lower rate compared to employees who retire after drawing salary on ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 19 revised basis during last 10 months of service. The reduction in .
monthly pension depends on number of months they draw salary on revised pay scales. This had generated a lot of distress among the affected employees, several of whom had requested for review.
The revision was sought to be justified by the respondents on the ground that the RBI Pension Regulations had been framed on the lines of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and in Government, pension is calculated at 50% of the emoluments of the last month or average emoluments received during last 10 months, whichever is beneficial to the employees.
19. It was on the aforesaid basis that the respondent Bank had forwarded the proposal to amend the Regulation 28 of RBI Pension Regulations, 1990 so as to bring it at par or provide for parimateria pension as was being given to the Central Government employees in terms of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Evidently, this proposal was to apply to all sections of the retired employees as is evident from para3 of the letter wherein the respondentBank itself had categorically mentioned that in case the amendment is carried out, then the benefit arising therefrom would be only to few employees and, therefore, the financial implication would be negligible and would go long way in removing an anomaly which exists today.
::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 2020. It is also not in dispute that the proposal of the .
bank was accepted as such by the Government of India without there being any modification as is evident from the letter dated 31.3.2017 (supra) wherein it was categorically observed that the proposal of the bank had been examined in the Department in consultation with D/o Expenditure and it had been decided to convey the approval on the same.
21. Once that be so, then obviously, the benefits of the amendment of the Regulations could not have been amended or altered by administrative circular. [Refer: V.T. Khanzode's case (supra]. Apart from the above, if the Central Board was of the view that the changes were required to be made in the Pension Regulations including cutoffdate for its implementation, then sanction of the Central Government was mandatory because unless the recommendations for the amendment were approved.
There is no binding force of such amendment [Refer: Cecil Dennis Solomon's case (supra].
22. Indubitably, the respondentBank did not seek approval of the Central Government before deciding to implement the Pension Regulations from the prospective date or from a particular date. Therefore, its action is illegal and cannot therefore be withstand judicial scrutiny.
::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP 2123. Accordingly, the impugned circular dated 7.6.2016 .
(Annexure P3) is quashed and setaside and resultantly, the impugned notification dated 28.8.2017 which fixes the date of operation of the amendment as 06.10.2017 is also quashed and setaside and the respondents are directed to refix the basic pension of the petitioner on the basis of 'last pay drawn' effective from 01.02.2013 and also pay commuted value of pension on that basis i.e. last pay drawn. The respondentBank is also directed to refund Rs.1,14,111/ to the petitioner which was recovered from the petitioner illegally without giving him any notice.
24. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s) if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of judgment be sent to the petitioner free of cost on his address as given in memo of parties.
December 14th,2018. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) (GR) Judge ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2018 22:56:47 :::HCHP