Patna High Court - Orders
Radhey Hyam Singh vs The State Bank Of India And Ors on 17 May, 2019
Author: Nilu Agrawal
Bench: Nilu Agrawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20343 of 2018
======================================================
Radhey Hyam Singh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Bank Of India and Ors
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Gyan Shankar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL
ORAL ORDER
3 17-05-2019Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Bank of India.
Petitioner in the present writ application seeks payment of pension. The contention of the petitioner is that he joined the bank service on 08.11.1982 and as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'VRS, 2000') which was with the approval of the Central Government, Indian Bank Associations (IBA) for seeking voluntary retirement under the VRS, 2000, petitioner took VRS retirement on 31.03.2001 after 18 years four months 23 days in service. Initially, the VRS, 2000 as per its conditions stated that an employee whose voluntary retirement is accepted would be paid a lump sum equivalent of 60 days salary for each completed year of service. However, in clause 8, it was stated that those Patna High Court CWJC No.20343 of 2018(3) dt.17-05-2019 2/3 employees who have opted for pension and have put in 20 completed year of service in the bank are entitled to pension. Thereafter, an amendment was brought about in the year 2002 in the VRS, 2000 at the instance of the IBA with the approval of the Central Government, Regulation 28 was amended. The said amendment was carried out in the year 2002 with retrospective effect from 01.09.2000. A proviso has been inserted to regulation 28 which reads as follows:
"Provided that pension shall also be granted to an employee who opts to retire before attaining the age of superannuation, but after having served for a minimum period of 15 years in terms of any scheme that may be framed for the purpose by the Bank's Board with the concurrence of the Government."
Certain matters traveled before the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein certain employees who had opted and put in more than 20 years of service and to whom pension was directed to be paid was not paid by the Nationalized Banks, moved the Apex Apex Court, wherein it has been held in view of the amendment under the VRS, 2000, the amendment was intended to cover the employees who had rendered 15 years of service as well which is reported in Bank of India & Ors. Vs. K.Mohandas & Ors. since reported in (2009) 5 SCC 313. It has been further Patna High Court CWJC No.20343 of 2018(3) dt.17-05-2019 3/3 submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a similar matter the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Shyam Pandey & Ors. since reported in (2015) 12 SCC 451 the Hon'ble Chief Justice had found the pensionary benefits unsustainable but as the dissenting judgment of Hon'ble Justice Gopala Gowda, the employees who had put in 15 years of service were entitled to pension under the VRS, 2000. However, it has been brought to the notice that the matter to go before three Hon'ble Judges has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 20.02.2019. He submits that in view of the principles laid down in Bank of India & Ors. Vs. K. Mohandas & Ors. since reported in (2009) 5 SCC 313 which is an earlier judgment, would be binding as per the settled principles.
Considering the said, the counsel for the State Bank of India would file a counter affidavit within a period of six weeks.
List the matter on 01.07.2019.
(Nilu Agrawal, J) devendra/-
U