Karnataka High Court
Miss Vasudha Ramabhadran vs Syndicate Bank on 21 November, 2011
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
spe eA Syadic: ite ba ank. » Head Office, _ (By Shri. K Radhesh Prabhu and Shri. Deepak Dave, Advocates ~ For Mis. Prabhu and Dave, Advocates) IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT. BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21°) DAY OF NOVE MBE R- 2011 BE PORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANA ND BYRAR BDDY WRIT PETITION No.1 1679 OF 2 | L007. S- R). BETWEEN: | Miss. Vasudha Ramabhadrain, Daughter of Late N. Rarmhhadran 7 Aged about 64. years | on "Harismaran" 987, Second R: ad ilwa ay, Parallel Roads Kengeri Satelite f "Downe . Bangalore: ~ 560-4 60. OO ae ...PETTTIONER (By Shri. 8. Prasa ad: | Auwacate) Byo Chan 'man and aan iging Director, Moasi pa S76 119, . RESPONDENT 2 . "dee . bebet . "EP This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 296 and 227 of the Constitution of India prayi ng to quash the order dated 23.14.2007 vide Annexure-M and ¢ SiC shay ee This Writ Petition is co ming on for Hearin ag this day; the: court made the follow Ing ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the. petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner was ® ric Atv who had obtained < Banton ob ai LL jegree: in the year 1967. The respondent | Bank "had invited " homios from eligible sate for the pods SP Baw Officer, in the Bank. The notification "in this récard is at Annexure-"A" to the writ
- petit toi" a was indicated that the maximum age prescribed for * the: post vas | 35 years and had also prescribed a minimum of seven years' practice as 4 lawyer. The petitioner was found ly qualified and was appointed by an order dated 26.09.1978. mn terms of Annexure-"C" to the writ petition, as a Law Officer ae, foot L ae a hao in the Senior grade of the Officers' cadre. The pentioner's period of probation was declared satisfactorily as on 14.11.1979 and she was confirmed in the permanent service. of i ne Bank in ct the Senior Officers' grade. She was promoted fro ain fine tO time and retired from service as Assistant General Manager:
(Law). on 31.01.2003. Her pension was. setiled m terms of we Annexure-"E", However, the fr clit fying serv vice ; taken into account was only 24 years from the tae of confirmation i.e from 6.10, 1979 16 the date of retin is this which is the grievance of the: petitioner, According fo the petitioner, the Bank had introduced a pension scheme for its employees namely the Syndicate Bank Employees Pension Regulations [993 (héreinafter referred to as the "Regulations" for brev Aty), which was a seheme pursuant to a settlement signed by the & india in Banks Association with the Workmens Union / OlTice ~. Orga sation on industrial level on 29.10.1993. The scheme aterialia, provided for an option to the existing employees who were on the rolls as on 1.11.1993 to exercise their opuions eo (3 thereunder namely employees joining the Bank or who had < oe jomed the Bank on or after 1.11.1993, who were oligibk s anly wf for pension value contributory provident fund aia were Covered © under the pension scheme automa! ically. This pomted out that aed under Regulation 26 ef nploy CES qualifying for superannuation.
pension, were eligible to add io | his or her Service the actual period not exceeding enésfourth of "he | length of his service, OF the actual period by which, his age "it the iiine of recruitment exceeded the! upper ge. limit spe spec fi ed | by the Bank for direct a recruitment, ore period of i ve. veard, whichever was less, if the service or post: nO. which the employee was appoimted is one which ioe post Sraduae research oor -- specialist 'fic ions Or experience in scientific, technological or . fess sion: al ite ids. When the petitioner applied to the Bank, tive "age of i cecritinen was increased to 35 years, due to the me requirement of professional experience of a minimum 7 years, "2, fhe post of Law Officers. Therefore, it is the petitioner' s & ase that she fulfilled the requirement of the 1995 Regulation e 22 26 for addition of the q alifying service under that regulation and since she was denied the addition of qualifying service of a period of five vears, the petitioner made a represenlalon as per. Annexure-"H
2. The respondent issued an endorsement at Agdexure> "F" rejecting the claim. of the petitioner on the ground that the EY the Oe act Government of India, on a Holmted. query raised respondent, had clarified that. the. employees such as the petitioner wowld 'not be. entitled for-any such claim, on the footing that.ihe Regulatidn is to be applied only for future ae recruitment and not for-existing employees. This the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit is not tenable since in ~-terins of the-Regulations itself, it is clear that it would apply to "allemployees who were in service of the Bank as on 1.11.1993 and the addition of qualifying service would make it clear that it ". veouid apply to all employees who were in service and not only tO emplovees recruited in future alone. It is in this background that the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the peticne + would "submit. that in so far as the ease of the petitioner is converted, admittedly she was a Law Glfiver with 13 years of experience as a Lawyer. prior to, her appointment. 'tds stated that a Committee for Standardisa ion of Pay Seales, Allowances and Perquisites oft Offices. i the Natiualised Banks was constituted, T be sa sais IC eromit tee has submitted its report as on 30.05: 1974 which 3 binding O the respondent -- Bank and in the course of its Feport,-it has clearly spelt out that Specialist Officers f foutd in the he majority oF Banks, would inchide 'Law oe Officers' tei is evident from a reading of the said Committee' s "report, a-copy Gf which is made available to the Court. At Pm, several. places in the said report, especially at Paragraphs 3.12 313, 3.21, 5.28 and 5.29, this is evident and therefore , there can oe no two opinions that the appointment order which clear Ty .
refers to the Pillai Committee report would render the appoinunent of the petitioner, as a Law Officer; as being construed as a Specialist Officer in which event, a plain reading of Regulation 26 of the Pension Regulations would'¢ ate able the petitioner to claim the addition of" five years: of qualifying service which has been denied vad therefore on the: face of it, the learned counsel for the fettionor soul submit that the espondent -- Bank has fa led in. 'ts duty toa ildress the case of the petilions ner in spite © f a sj pecifi uivesiién by this Court in an earlier writ: petition ited ~in._W-P.No.10634/2004 dated 19.92. 2006 purser 10 A vhich 'the petitioner's claim has been rejected over again, and it is in that background that the petitioner seeks appropriate directions to the respondent -- ER ed, Bank.
© 4..The learned counsel for the respondent on the other ° hand, would vehemently contest the petition and in support of the Statement of objections filed would contend that the Seay appointment order. on the face of it, does not refer fo the petitioner as a 'Specialist Officer' within the meaning of Regulation No.26. ft is the petitioner's own interpretation a to -
"Law Officers" being Specialist OF icers and: the writ petition is hot supported by any document to indica that the appointment: | order can be construed as indicatin 1g that the petitioner IS a Specialist Officer. That siowwithstnding. he reference fo Pillar Committee Report which is | prod need ; before the Court subsequent to coniple tion 0 Or the ! sleadings, the same would not advance the ease of the peti pe tit ioner since the petitioner cannot the general stream of Bank omployees" and was riot considered as a Specialist Officer as . Was-the "case of--officers such as Chart ered Accountants, Economists, ete.-who continue in the same position { throughout a ae and therefore, could be safely treated as "spe sclalis ' The petitioner though appointed as a Law Officer, "she wes not continued in the same capacity and the petitioner _ has been appointed as an Assistant General Manager in charge 9 of a branch also during | cannol, by any stretch of imagination, be considered as. a Specialist Officer by reference to the Pill It is only an assumption on the part of the petitioner that she was appointed as a Specialist Officer and "therefore, the petitioner being denied the additional g uallving service, is in order. The learned counsel woukl submit that an unfair contention has been taken that the cirection issued by this Court in the earlier 'rit petition has not been complied with. On the other hand, every. sing! > contention of the petitioner has been addressed,.in thatthe Sérvice Regulations did not provide for appomtment of a SpecialisU Officer and as such, the petitioner . WAS Hot appointed-as a Specialist Officer. This is evident from », the appointment-order. In the absence of Recruitment Rules, the order of appointment and the order of confirmation clearly "Indicates that the petitioner was appointed only as an Officer in "the Bank and was fit into the category of the Officer of the Bank as per recommendations of the said Pillai committee _ Mh a ¢ i ler Tenure and therefore, the petitioner a1 Committee report, --
ee 8 a duly framed and approved by the Central Government providing for such benefit, that the same can be clais med by y the I g petiuoner. In the absence of any Recruitment Ral les HS OF date the petitioner placing reliance on the sbpeitument dider siigh does not indicafe that he was a specialist officer, would not 3 aiford the petitioner to claim stich status 'and claim additional qualifying service. It is in.this vein that the learned counsel for the respondent would seek to-deny che benefir to the petitioner. att
- From the above. facis and circumstances, it is not in \ spate tar neither the Rectuitroent Rules nor the Pension "AS ¢ Regu rlatic ons. were in foree on the date the petitioner was appointed as 'x Law Officer. The petitioner had the experience as on the date of "Ob 13 years as a Lawyer such recruitment. experience could enable "Whether suciie ble the petitioner to claim the States ofa Specialist Officer, cannot be in doubt. This is "evident from the Pilla; Committee Report itself which trears a Law Officer as a Specialist Officer, Hence, in the absence of ee
--
-
ho Rules of recruitment or the Pension Re egulations defining Law appointed by virtue of his experienc e, which is not-legs than-- r ; i Te even yeurs, can be treated as a Spscialise Officer, cannot be rn dispute. The petitioner was certainly a. Specialist Gfficer, inv which event the next question would be Whether the Pension Regulations providing fot addition of five: years of service, can be pressed into service in so far-as, the petitioner is concerned. Hf the petitioner has bee 7 Lacrepted a as a 'Special ist Officer and if the minimu a qualifying service rendered by the petitioner is not in dispate, Ue petitions is 'certainly entitled to claim the additional" qual lifyi ing "sérvize. Reference to the provisos to Regulation 26 would Not arise for consideration in the present "case sue S the Guestio n of the Recruitment Rules providir sey henelt th the petitioner would arise only Wf such rules had been frarhed even before the appointment of the petitioner, 'Any Subsequent rules being framed would be irrelevant in SO . fer as the petitioner is concerned. Hence, to contend that the .. ..
-
a Recruitment Rules are framed and duly approved by the: Central x Government as required under the third proviso" te. 'the Regulations, the petitioner cannot be conferred "any such benefit, is not a contention that can be accepted. The Pension Regulations have certainly come int farce even 'before th petitioner attained the age of superannuation and the Regulations itself in dicated that it woul ipply in respect of the employees who were i.euiployment as or : 7 1.1993, which certainly enatiled the petitioner to claim the benefit of the Re egulations as being ap pplica ble :. Therefore a plain reading of Regulation ant vertainity ay pply to the petitioner who is to be treated as a a Spec 7 ilist tne: The incidental circumstances 7 that. the petitioner Was Posted as an Assistant General Manager in Charge of & branch Was an exigency which the respondent -- Bank sought te supply by appointing the petitioner who was .certainhy a Specialist Officer since she was also capable "discharging the duties of an in-charge Assistant General _Mbmnager. That it did not detract from the fact that the petitioner oe ne | i :
was certainly a Specialist Officer. The mere inst: ance oF the petitioner having discharged the duties of an Assist ant Ge neral Manager -- in cha ge of a Branch did not render kint-and less ao Specialist Officer. The incidental r eference 0 ads ecls ion of this Court in the case of B. Virre/] Pai Us, "Syma 'ale Be nk, wor id nob advance the case of the resporiden Incidenaly, that was a case of an officer in the general cadre of the respondent ~ Bank and Was nots Specialist Officer. / It was also x case of an officer who had ried fiom cerview ei befor the Pension Regul lations: came, into force. It w 'a8 an incidental contention that the secon an tht pioviso 180 tO Regulation 26 were null and void, since. according'to the petitioners therein, by virtue of the same there was discrimination between officers who retired before | the Pos nsion Regulations came into force and those who retired after he same came into force. The points for considerati ion framed in that case which would be relevant in so 'fer as the present case on hand is concerned, is Point No.4 _ which reads as follows:
' %, a C aS a _ (8) Whether, in view af ihe second and third Proviso given to Resulation 26 of the Pers HKegulations, in the absence af Recruitment Rules op the Bank providing for--r applicable to the post held fas fhe appreval af the Conmid Govertimesii. 'The.
yeliioner is entstod Py or Fi "F OF the benefit of five"
And the same is. answered: as ioiluws by the learned Single Judge:
Re. Questions (3) & (4):
iQ, Sitee questions (3) and (4} are inter- idiked, £ aie of the view that it ts Convenienz to consider beth the questions logether. Aft the GUuisel f§ Miry POI ox GHSWEF OF Ouvestion No.3 should nnhestatingly be ageinst ithe petitioner. However fore § proceed ta ~ consider the said question. tr is use extract Regulation 26 of the Pension Regulations which reads thys-
"26. Addition to qualifying service in special circumstance:
a) An emplovee shall be elisible te add to hax service qualifying for superannuation PeNSION > {but not for any other class 7 fi fener of is service or actual period bvodich -
HS O80 at the ime of recritinient exceedeed the I 5 "pper age limit specified bythe Bank for divect:
recruitment exceéded the upper cage. limit specified by the Bank for direc? PeECrUliMent oF ever is less, if the a period of five, SEMMICE OF posh. ta whi 4H the employee is appointed (8 one PESearCH, oF SRectalist. qualification or experience in 'hnological, er professional fields,
- SCLOMIIg, bey ES CSSCHE LES Pal sig tee a oer pamaie 1, Pane in Bei me bat a, Sle aa INS ae ne oN me re oo no mer = ty bp te which ca:
upper age linit spectfied for direct reeruinment are normally recruited;
for which the candidates was RiVEN ave rélaxation over and above the FIGXIPHENT age limit fixed bv the Bank on account of es i DOSSESSHIO A fetier qualifications ar EXPEPLENCE, Ed 1 oF experience in sclentific, tec toleevical ar Professional fiel ce The said order simp fis States thet the petitioner wets appointes basa Officer of the Bank.
placed before me HY 4 that the petitioner ves appointed AeepIN mind his spec 'alist queer ific a ition Or eHee. Therefore. us obsé 3) "ne earlier, TF din ef the wWew that the ONES, "on fucts, i not entitled Jor the benefir a 'Regulation 26 of the Pension 'Reeulas H Eve ere other wise, in my view, Regulation ne 26. AS pie. peciive in petfure. Sei. Reames. while Fiohily conientled" by of pension ES nage relrospective, the rvisionis. contained an Regulation 26 are ~ natile prospee ive. This is clear fram the a R egukition 26, fd, No Is the last question ix as to whether the "second and third provisos BIEN fe Regulation 26 of the Pension Regulaiions are vequired fo be struck dows eas GISCKIMUnELrY in Hatare as contended by Sri Rajagopal on this question, | am unable to accede te jhe submission of Sri. Rajagopal. As noticed Py He earlier, when the Pension Scheme is Hiade operative réetrospectivels, Regulation 26 Of the OF oy gg ge doy FY cteyne bet thon ge gs 2 error ae Pension Reeulations, In ew fs 19 Prospective in operation, Further. payment of pension was not one of the conditions of service, whic a7 wre applicable to the ens plovees - OF the Bank will passing of the Pension Regulations. Theyre fore, merely becatize ihe - benefit of Regulation 26 is poi given. to all file emplovees including Hie eh ployees who have: retired from servive if is not possible 10 hike the view thar the second and third provisos given ig Reguletion 26 ure lable to be struck down as discriminate fo: y in nat ure. The benefit of previous. service. isan deldition nal concession given by the: Pz nsion Regulations: and that too ne limited nummer af posts' which satisfy the . requirements 'laid down in the said : Regulations. While framing the Pension _Kegulations,. since now benefits are extended. in my-view, it is open to the Bank to make it Prospective in operation. ff ts Hot the cuase where ihe pétitiorier and other employees of . the Bank were entitled' for the. bene it of the: oe Pension' Scheme and: a 'additional benefir | of : the Supreme Court nod dD. 8. Nakare i edrlier. in The wastant ©
2.
ees ; by me the Denefit of the: 0 20 Pension Scheme wes frroduced for the first fime after the retiremen; of the petitioner fi Serviee. In omy wiew while iuroducinve the Pension Scheme for the POS times ats it hers ven done in the instant case, whike the bs was Made to come i Ho operation with. effve from 1996, it was Open te fhe Authoriiies fo. uNpose certain - conditions fo make ihe applicable in respec fof part of the "addition al benefit given under tite" Se hom ie prospective ut operation: lp such: ca ses, there TS NO question of discrim ing ation er any ope. jor makine a nS ave violative of "grievance that. such pro vIsic ig of the Consiinei Hon af India. The Beovisionin ihe Scheme has 10 be understood rop of "the | anvne and object of the Herodue fom of me Scheme, The two PrOVISOS "ick RE inte uated BOSE Cerhun conditions far Eber ben TW of additional service OF five veers, in Hey view, cannot be considered as either unreasonabie or arbitrary. The decision of fhe . Signr reme Court in Kasturi yy Managing a Director (supraj. in Wy view, is a complete answer fo ihe submission of Sri Rajagopal. In the said dec ion, the Supreme Court has ciaborately reviewed the earlier cease law on te subject and after referring to the various judgments of the Supreme Coneyt. nOliced n ae SA Y ee ..-:-:«.:«sdiaie 7 scheme and had become eligible fe earn pension af ihe time of for ranted OF ¢ class, ir was fel for granting additional pent fer o ihe penstoners in he Same Class Of emplovees ould nol he coumernanced OR the fouel ste of Article 14 of the Const! tution of india «re para-& of the ropest it was eoted thes ne, " Primary contentions tha the pensioners of ihe Central Govern np faim a Class for the parpose of pensionary } periefins aiid there could "nO be mini dlassifica igaet within te class . designated as pensioners.
A question was pesed in para @ of the report fie zr facta UPS 'class of pensioners further be divisible: for. the Purpose of 'entitlement' ane payment of pension into those who retired by ceria: date and those who retired dpler that dae. The aforesaid decision cannot be of ary issistance to learned Counsel for the appellant facts of the present case. In Nakevea's OW The case admittedly all the Central Government Servanis were governed by Pension scheme and were eligible te draw PENSION OF iy 7 ~ gh gh. ws et eps. appt re in the faces of ihe present case, if is apprectae how the appellant can be suid te 2 Be forming the same class of emplovees w ho Came nein (986 by the pension scheme by bein ge conf es red the benefit of newly ineroduced: PREFISESIN elatse(c) aps eligibility as per aniende 22t1) The new class of e PHOVEES COVES yy # was consisting. of all the. ihen existing members of the find who hy dl-« completed 20 VEUrS of pensionable se vie cand whe could be below the ape Of sid years. dt 'te time of their retirement ss the earlier SS years as foi Jowesetaa} of rule 2267) : revised. by. re WEES meching Clausele}. ft is also
20. Be HORE ed that earlier clausel!) gave retires "ai the age. 6 30 sears fill pension. And . 3 a see} should fo give retires below 50 years EES proportionate pension for the first time dfier September, 1986. Thiy new class of 's were for the first time maz lieibie CMH VE fo gei the benefit of pension Such pensionary benefit was not Sag a re om a wes one oe = oe Bs = m prior to the amendment of ?
rule 226 2).
Clauset oh @ Mew pension scheme for them and nor old nine in a new hette. For sueh class of "pis syigegse: the erry oF SEELEY pbeS aa emplovees there was no question, to any mind ao FOP ERE CHIE CLS" GP SOV ai empiovees of the first time the bene efit A pension scheme was made availiable By. Gn anviendmenr, The decision of the Can Bench in 'y Case iMerefore, cannot advance the case of learned Counsel for the. appetiant, We may élso mention that the ratio | of Nakera's case was distinguishes be we later Consiititlon. Bench decisions "of this COMFT...
25, We reap nos v turd fo me. decisions of this Court which ave et direct "bearing On the iit Of these pr in the case of winidnder, Heed QGuorter, Caleutta and Other: Cop Biplabendra Chandra, 1997¢ 1}; 208 | 8 Bye Fitel ge Bench of this Court had ip. e 'examine the nev revised Bules which had reduced: he requisite minimum qualifying é "for earning pension while conside ring the case of a person whe hed retired earlier and was ineligible to ket pension under ihe f ¢ ad inet he Rules in force then. This Cort he could not be given eligibility for pension by virtue of the amended Rule. In the said Case, the Benca examined the fact situation wheres in He ihe claimant wes a Commissioned OR retired on 185.1982. On the date op his retirement! onfy Of pre-conpelsstoned discussion made above. } Jind if unnecessary tc refer to some of the ether decisions relied BDOR by Sri Rajapopal."
AS can be seen above, the rea soning of "the Fes le ned | Single Judge was ina different context altogether and cannot be said in apply to the present case on h and The petitioner dees not seek to question the validity of the pro igs ta the Re sgulation for the reason that the same would riot be rant im so far as the petitioner' s CASE 1S. concerned. In that vi vi ew of the matter, the Bank seeking to-deny the addition of five years of qualifying serves, is uy nfair, a und. ileal . T he petition stands allowed. Annexure: . M" is quashed, The respondents are directed to grant "the benefit oF additional qualifying service as 7 contemp! Mil ed under Regulation 26 of the Syndicate Bank "Eniployees-. Pension Regulations, 1995 and the respondents shall recalculate the pension that the petitioner would be entitled to and grant all consequential benefits that Flow from the order of refixation including the arrears that are payable, S Pn Een .
y