Madras High Court
C.Sankari vs State Bank Of Hyderabad on 13 July, 2012
Author: Vinod K.Sharma
Bench: Vinod K.Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.07.2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.No.9750 of 2006 C.SANKARI ... PETITIONER -vs 1. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR HEAD OFFICE, GUNFOUNDRY, HYDERABAD-500004. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER (PPG) HEAD OFFICE, GUNFOUNDRY, HYDERABAD-4. 3. THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD, THOUSAND LIGHTS BRANCH 37/B, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-14. 4. INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, BLOCKS NOS.2 & 3, STADIUM HOUSE, 6TH FLOOR, 81-83 VEER NARIMAN ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. ... RESPONDENTS Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Declaration, to declare that the order of the second respondent vide Lr.No.PPG/PEN/95/574 dt.21.3.2002 in the so far as fixing qualifying service as 20 years is contrary to Regulations 14 and 35 (6) (a) of Pension Regulations 1995 as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to grant the petitioner pro-rata pension in terms of pension regulation 1995 together with interest at 12% p.a. from April 2006 or in the alternative direct the State Bank of Hyderabad to grant pension benefits together with interest at 12% p.a. from April 2006 in terms of the settlement dated 27.04.2010. (prayer clause amended as per order of this Court dated 25.01.2012) For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vaidyanathan For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.Radhakrishnamurthy ***** O R D E R
The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ of declaration, that the second respondent's order No. Lr.No.PPG/PEN/95/574 dt.21.3.2002 in fixing the qualifying service of 20 years for grant of pension, is contrary to Regulations 14 and 35 (6) (a) of Pension Regulations 1995, with consequential relief to direct the respondents to grant the pro-rata pension in terms of pension Regulation 1995 together with interest at 12% p.a. from April 2006 to the petitioner or in the alternative direct the State Bank of Hyderabad to grant pension benefits together with interest at 12% p.a. from April 2006, under the settlement dated 27.04.2010
2. The petitioner joined the services of State Bank of Hyderabad as Cashier-cum-Clerk on compassionate ground on 15.10.1982 at Parrys Corner Branch. The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement under State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees') Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2001, circulated vide circular No.PER/2000-2001/87 dated 25.01.2001. The request of petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted, and he was allowed to go on Voluntary Retirement with effect from 31.03.2001.
3. The petitioner thereafter filed representation on 11.03.2002, for grant of prorata pension in terms of the Pension Regulation, 1995. The request of petitioner was rejected on 21.03.2002, on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of service to be eligible for pension.
4. The submission of petitioner is, that the respondents were under the erroneous assumption, that the minimum qualifying service required for pension is 20 years under the Pension Regulation, 1995, therefore, wrongly rejected the request for prorata pension.
5. In support of the plea, that the petitioner was entitled to prorata pension, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, wherein the qualifying service for being eligible for pension is 10 years as on the date of retirement, on which the employee retires. It is not in dispute that the petitioner sought voluntary retirement under VRS.
6. According to the State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, the employee is not eligible to seek voluntary retirement, before completing 20 years of service. Therefore, the petitioner was not eligible for voluntary retirement under Pension Regulations. The petitioner, therefore, cannot take benefit of Regulation 14 to claim, that she is entitled to prorata pension, as the petitioner sought voluntary retirement under State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees') Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2001, which clearly stipulated, that though employee, who had put in 15 years of service, was eligible for voluntary retirement under the VRS scheme, but the persons so seeking voluntary retirement will not be entitled to pension, if he had not completed 20 years of service. The petitioner, having accepted the voluntary retirement under the Special Scheme,cannot question the order vide which the request of petitioner for grant of prorata pension was rejected. The scheme being special was to override general regulations.
7. The petitioner has also prayed for alternative relief i.e. for grant of pension under the statutory settlement dated 27.04.2010 enter into between the Indian Banks' Association on behalf of the Management listed in the Schedule and their Workmen, represented by All India Bank Employees' Association (AIBEA), National Confederation of Bank Employees (NCBE), Bank Employees' Federation of India (BEFI), Indian National Bank Employees' Federation (INBEF) and National Organisation of Bank Workers (NOBW). Under the statutory settlement dated 27.04.2010, an option was given to persons, to exercise their option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer, to become a member of the Pension Fund.
8. It is not disputed, that the petitioner opted for pension under the settlement dated 27.04.2010 on 21.06.2010, i.e. within 60 days, even though an offer was not made to her in violation of the scheme. The option given by the petitioner on 21.06.2010 reads as under:
"Sankari Chandrasekaran P.F.No.030263 Retired Under VRS Address: B-4, Kala Flats New No.10, Old No.13, Temple Avenue, Srinagar Colony, (Behind Saidapet Court) Chennai-600 015 Date 21st June 2010 To The Chief Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-500 001.
Without Prejudice Dear Sir, Sub: Pension Payable to me as per 9th Bi-Partite Settlement I retired under VRS in the year 2000/2001 from Thousand Lights Branch, Chennai. I have completed more than 15 years of service. I am a pension optee and the bank did not pay me pension till date. I have already surrendered to the bank the employer's contribution. Now I understand that pension is payable to me as per 9th Bi-partite pension settlement. I am applying for sanctioning of pension to me under 9th bipartite pension settlement. I agree to all terms & conditions of the bank in terms of the settlement. If any amount is to be paid, I will comply with it.
I request you to sanction me pension from the date of effect of the pension clause agreed upon as mentioned in the settlement. I wish to opt for one-third of basic pension eligible as commutation. For all practical purposes, this may be treated as an application for sanctioning of pension. In case my pension is granted by the bank, I agree to withdraw the case field before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Official correspondence may be sent to my residential address. Yours Truly, (Sankari Chandrasekaran)"
9. The settlement dated 27.04.2010, which is binding on the Bank, stipulates that:
"(4) Employees who ceased to be in service on or after 29th September 1995 in case of Nationalised Banks / 26th March 1996 in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India on account of voluntary retirement under special scheme after rendering service for a minimum period of 15 years, shall be eligible to exercise an option to join the Pension Scheme subject to the terms and conditions mentioned for retiring employees opting for joining the Scheme."
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that by way of statutory settlement arrived at between the parties, which is binding on the Management as well as Employees, the person, who had ceased to be in service on or after 29th September 1995 in case of Nationalised Banks / 26th March 1996 in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India on account of voluntary retirement under special scheme after rendering service for a minimum period of 15 years, is eligible, to avail benefits under the settlement.
11. It is not disputed, that the petitioner sought voluntary retirement under the special scheme after rendering 15 years' of service, therefore, was fully eligible for grant of pension. The request of petitioner for grant of pension under settlement dated 27.04.2010, is extended with reference to the circular dated 28.08.2010 of the respondent Bank, which was issued for extending period of option to join the pension scheme. In the circular dated 28.08.2010, it is stipulated that persons, who sought voluntary retirement under the special scheme, would only be entitled to pension after rendering minimum period of 20 years. The circular therefore is prima facie contrary to statutory settlement dated 27.04.2010.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly the subsequent circular on the ground that being contrary to the statutory settlement between the parties, therefore, cannot take away right of petitioner, under settlement dated 27.04.2010.
13. There is force in this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, as the settlement dated 27.04.2010, being beneficiary legislation, has to be given liberal interpretation, to advance object than the one which will defeat the object of settlement to deny the pension to employee covered by the settlement.
14. This question need not be gone into at this stage, as the petitioner is not covered under the circular of 28.08.2010, having opted for grant of pension in pursuance to the settlement dated 27.04.2010, on 21.06.2010, i.e., within the stipulated period of 60 days, therefore, was not the person, who had failed to opt to be covered under the subsequent circular, passed by way of concession to those employees who had failed to exercise their option under the settlement dated 27.04.2010.
15. The writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank, by contending that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of pension, as he sought voluntary retirement under the special scheme, which stipulated that the person, who seeks voluntary retirement prior to completion of 20 years of service, will not be entitled to pension. Therefore, once the petitioner accepted the voluntary retirement under the special scheme, he cannot at this stage demand pension under the pension regulations on prorata basis.
16. There can be no dispute with this proposition of law. However, this contention does not arise in the present writ petition, as this Court is also of the view, that the petitioner is not entitled to pension under Pension Regulations in view of the voluntary retirement under scheme of 2001. However, the petitioner is claiming pension under the statutory settlement arrived at between the management and the workmen dated 27.04.2010, which covers the employees who had put in 15 years of service, before seeking voluntary retirement under a special scheme.
17. It was the contention of learned counsel for the respondents, that the settlement dated 27.04.2010 is not binding on the respondents, for want of amendment to the Pension Regulation. In support, learned counsel placed reliance on Section 63 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, which lists out the procedure for framing of regulation, governing the subsidiary banks. Section 63 provides that the State Bank of India is competent to make regulations, with regard to the subsidiary banks, by issuing notification in the official gazette, which is further required to be placed before the Parliament.
18. It was contended, that the settlement dated 27.04.2010, being in violation of the Pension Regulation gives no right to the petitioner, for want of amendment to service regulation, that voluntary retirement was not permitted without rendering 20 years service.
19. This contention of learned counsel for the respondents deserves to be noticed to be rejected, for the reason, that the benefit under the settlement is by way of special scheme and not under the Pension Regulations. If this contention of learned counsel for the respondents is accepted, then it will lead to absurd results, as the State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees') Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2001, under which the petitioner sought retirement, went contrary to the Pension Regulations, which bars the voluntary retirement before completing 20 years of service. Therefore, the pension regulations cannot come in way of petitioner to claim pension under statutory settlement dated 27.04.2010.
20. The very fact, that the scheme was implemented and accepted, shows, that it was open to the Bank to frame special scheme. Furthermore, the circular dated 28.08.2010 clearly shows, that the respondent Bank accepted the statutory settlement dated 27.04.2010, and extended time for option, subject to conditions laid in the circular. Therefore, if Section 63 is given true meaning, then it has to be applied only to the regulations, governing the service condition, but not to the special scheme or statutory settlement entered into between the Bank and the employees' union. The section 63 has no application to this case. The reading of settlement dated 27.04.2010 clearly stipulates that it was to apply to the employees, who had opted for voluntary retirement under special scheme after rendering service for minimum period of 15 years. Therefore, the respondents cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath, as on one hand they accepted voluntary retirement under special scheme, which went contrary to Pension Regulations and at the same time oppose beneficial settlement made applicable to those employees under the garb of Pension Regulations.
21. It may also be noticed that the settlement dated 27.04.2010, being statutory, is binding on the respondent Bank. The respondent Bank cannot back out from the said settlement merely on the ground, that it went contrary to the Pension Regulations, when the scheme of voluntary retirement 2001 provided for premature retirement to the persons on completion of 15 years of service, though it was not permissible under the Pension Regulations.
22. As noticed above, the circular dated 28.08.2010 is not applicable to the case of petitioner, as he had admittedly opted under the settlement dated 27.04.2010, which only stipulates 15 years of service for grant of pension.
23. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for grant of pension in terms of settlement dated 27.04.2010, which has the statutory force of law.
24. The needful be done within a period of three months of the receipt of certified copy of this order.
25. It is made clear, that the petitioner shall comply with all the terms and conditions under the settlement, and deposit the amount, which may be directed to be deposited under the settlement.
26. No costs.
ar To
1. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR HEAD OFFICE, GUNFOUNDRY, HYDERABAD-500004.
2. THE CHIEF MANAGER (PPG) HEAD OFFICE, GUNFOUNDRY, HYDERABAD-4.
3. THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD, THOUSAND LIGHTS BRANCH 37/B, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-14.
4. INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, BLOCKS NOS.2 & 3, STADIUM HOUSE, 6TH FLOOR, 81-83 VEER NARIMAN ROAD MUMBAI 400 020