Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Such employees were held entitled to be eligible to opt for Pension Scheme under the Regulations framed in consequence of the agreement arrived. It is claimed that a provision was made that officers who had retired between 1-1-1986 and 31-10-1993, if they opt for Pension Scheme, were bound to refund that part of provident fund which represented Bank contribution of the fund together with interest thereon drawn by them at the time of retirement with further interest of 6% p.a. from the date of the withdrawal to the date of refund. Pursuant to the settlement referred to above the Board of Directors of the Canara Bank adopted the draft Regulations provided by the Indian Banks' Association vide its letter dated 28-3-1994. The Board of Directors of the said appellant-Bank issued the circular dated 13-6-1994 calling for option of employees for Pension Scheme. On receiving the information, the officers who had retired from service of the Bank after 1-1-1986 started writing to the Bank to know the procedure for exercising the option for being entitled to the grant of pension. The said Bank found the petitioners eligible for pension and wrote them various communications calling upon them to be guided by item-B of the Circular for exercising option before 30-9- 1994. The Bank also advised the aforesaid retired employees that matter regarding their eligibility had been taken-up with the Indian Banks' Association and the position would be clarified on hearing from the said Association. The Association is stated to have clarified vide its letter dated 18-10-1994 that the officers who had retired voluntarily under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on or after 1-1-1986 were also eligible for pension. It is submitted that the Indian Banks' Association vide its letter dated 14-12-1995 intimated the Bank that the qualifying service of the employee who had voluntarily retired under the voluntary scheme, which was in vogue on or after 1-1-1986 shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such an employee shall not in any case exceed 33 years. The aforesaid Bank is stated to have intimated all the writ petitioners acceptance of their offers for Pension Scheme and directed them to undergo medical examination at their cost with the Bank's approved doctors for the purpose of commutation of pension. The concerned employees who had opted for the Pension Scheme underwent the medical examination.

3. In this factual background, the writ petitioners sought the relief as noted hereinbefore alleging usual pleas of the offending Regulation being discriminatory and violative of the fundamental rights as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. It was submitted that Regulation 19(1) of the Service Regulations and the Scheme of Voluntary Retirement framed by the Bank treated retirement on reaching the age of superannuation and voluntary retirement pursuant to the option exercised by the officials identical in all matters and categorically declared that officers wishing to retire on voluntary basis would be given all such benefits as were available to the officers retiring on completion of the age of retirement. It was contended that under the Pension Regulations, officers who had retired from the Bank after reaching the age of superannuation on or after 1-1-1986 having made eligible for pension, the officers like the petitioners who had retired on voluntary basis on or after 1-1-1986 could not be discriminated against and denied pension. It was further reiterated that after the said bank categorically held that all those who had retired from service of the Bank on or after 1-1-1986 either on reaching the age of superannuation or by virtue of the orders passed by the Bank, it was not fair on their part to deprive the writ petitioners the grant of pension which was claimed to be permissible under the Regulations. The action of the respondent was termed to be grossly unfair, unjust, manifestly arbitrary and capricious. According to the petitioners, by virtue of the retirement for any other reason specified in the Service Regulations, covered under Regulation 32(b), even the officers who had voluntarily retired by virtue of the scheme framed under the Service Regulations were entitled to receive pension in terms of the Pension Regulations and denial of pension by the banks was contrary to the settled position of law. All the officers who had retired after 1-1-1986 were termed to be of homogenous group and class which could not be divided further by resorting to micro classifications by arbitrarily fixing the eligibility criteria unrelated to the purpose of provision for pension. Having made a scheme for those who had retired on or after 1-1-1986 the banks were not justified to further divide such class of employees into separate groups and categorise with the object of denying pension to some of them. Such an action was termed to be arbitrary classification violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents-employees claimed that they satisfied all the conditions of voluntary retirement prescribed under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations of 1995. It was contended that having regard to the consistent policy of the Reserve Bank of India and the Central Government as noted herein earlier, the action of the respondent-Banks in denying pension to the writ petitioners for the reasons that though they had retired after 1-1-1986 they were not entitled to the grant of pension only because they had voluntarily retired under the then prevalent scheme, was arbitrary, discriminatory and unjust. It was submitted that though the process of voluntary retirement commenced with the notice seeking voluntary retirement by the employee culminated in retirement only pursuant to the orders passed by the competent authority permitting voluntary retirement. Therefore, the interpretation placed by the appellant-Union of India on "Premature retirement" was wholly arbitrary, capricious and untenable. The writ petitioners submitted that they were entitled to monthly provisional pension at a rate equal to the post commutation pension as calculated by the Bank and communicated to them vide Annexure-C produced in the writ petition.

4. The writ petitions were resisted on the grounds, inter alia, that the entire basis of the case of the employees regarding discrimination and violation of their alleged legal rights was mis- conceived and without any basis. They were alleged to be not entitled to pension having regard to the Pension Regulations framed by the Banks after due approval from the Central Government in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant-Canara Bank submitted that the service conditions of the officer/employees of the bank did not entitle them to any pension. There existed a scheme for payment of Provident Fund, Gratuity, etc. under the Service Regulations. It was conceded that there was a long standing demand by the bank employees in the Banking Industry for grant of pension for which several discussions and negotiations were held at the industry levels for several years. Finally, the bank proposed to introduce Pension Scheme for all the employees and some proposals were put forth while introducing the Pension Scheme for officers which was not approved by the Reserve Bank of India or the Central Government. The Scheme circulated by the Bank vide Circular dated 30-6-1994 (Annexure-F) contained the proposed terms and conditions of the Pension Scheme subject to the bank obtaining necessary approval and sanction both from the Reserve Bank of India and the Central Government. The Bank also called for options to be exercised from officer-employees who had retired between 1-1-1986 and 31-10-1993. Many retirees of the aforesaid category gave their options. The Bank has also admitted to have tried to calculate the pension which a retiree was entitled to on the assumption that the scheme would have the approval of the Government. The Government, however, did not approve the said scheme and on the other hand was alleged to have made some modifications and finally after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and sanction from the Government of India, the Banks made Regulations known as the "Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation 1995, which was published in the Gazette and came into force with effect from 29-9-1995. Under the Regulations all employees who were in the services of the Bank on or after 1-1-1986 but had retired before 1-11-1993 only were held eligible for the grant of pension. Prior to the coming into force of the Pension Regulation, the Bank had a scheme for voluntary retirement of its officer-employees which was claimed to be purely an administrative scheme and had been introduced after approval of the Board of Directors of the Bank. Neither the Reserve Bank of India nor the Central Government had sanctioned or approved the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by the Bank. Regulation 19(1) of the Service Regulations was not followed for formulating the scheme. According to the said scheme all officers who had completed 50 years of age or had put in 20 years of service were eligible to seek voluntary retirement subject to certain terms and conditions. They were eligible for Provident Fund, Gratuity, encashment of privilege leave as on the date of the retirement permissible to them subject to a maximum of 240 days on the basis of number of years of service put-in by them in the Bank. The officers were not eligible for any additional payment consequent upon their voluntary retirement. This Voluntary Retirement Scheme is claimed to be distinct from compulsory retirement. The Pension Scheme, upon the basis of which the relief was claimed by the voluntarily retired employees of the Bank had been introduced in the Banking Industry uniformly by all the 19 nationalised banks and 7 associated banks of the State Bank of India. It was submitted that if the writ petitioners' request for voluntary retirement pension is acceded to, it would result in pensionary benefit being extended to voluntarily retired officers in a few banks and officers with similar service in the bank being denied pension. The criteria for accepting voluntary retirement is stated to be different from bank to bank and there did not exist any uniformity. The submission of the representations for grant of pension by the employees like the writ petitioners was not denied by the appellants. According to the appellants the date of retirement of employees meant the last date of the month in which the employee attained the age of superannuation or the date on which he was retired by the Bank or the date on which the employee voluntarily retired. It was submitted that none of the writ petitioners had retired on the orders of the Bank in public interest nor were they retired on the basis of any specific service regulation or settlement. As there did not exist any Pension Scheme, once the writ petitioners had left the services of the banks prior to the introduction of the Pension Regulations, they were not entitled to the grant of relief which otherwise was not available to them under the Regulations. It was submitted that the writ petitioners had no right to claim coverage under the new Pension Scheme since they had already retired and had collected retirement benefits from the appellant-Banks. Persons voluntarily retired before a particular date formed a distinct group. According to the appellants there exist two distinct groups, viz., (1) comprising of those who voluntarily retired on their own choice in view of the then prevalent scheme, and (2) prematurely retired employees who were retired on the orders of the banks at their discretion in public interest or for any specific reasons stated under the Regulations or settlement. It was submitted that in service jurisprudence there could not be any service rule which could satisfy each and every employee and its constitutionality was required to be judged by considering whether it was fair, reasonable and judicious to the majority of the employees and fortune of some individuals was not the touch-stone to determine the constitutionality of the allegedly offending provisions. The entering into of the settlement with the workmen-union under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act on 29-10-1993 was admitted. It was further submitted that a joint note was signed by the Officers' Association stating that the scheme was to be extended to all officers in the services of the bank as on 31-10-1993 and those who wish to opt for pension in response to the banks notice. It was denied that the joint note provided that all officers retiring voluntarily or otherwise after completing 10 years of service were eligible for pension. The issuance of Annexure-G by the petitioners was not disputed but it was submitted that the same was issued almost one year prior to the formulation of the Pension Scheme. It was admitted that the bank proposed draft regulations and circulated the same vide Annexure-F. It was submitted that it was mentioned therein that it would be considered for implementation only after following the procedure prescribed under the Banks Nationalisation Act and subject to final adoption after following the procedure, viz., after sanction or approval by the Reserve Bank of India and the Government of India. It was also admitted that the Indian Banks' Association took the view based on approved regulation that the officers who retired voluntarily from the service of the hank between 1-1-1986 and 31-10-1993 were eligible for pension under the regulation. It was also conceded that pursuant to the approved regulation circulated by the banks, several retirees had given an option for the grant of pension. The communication Annexure-J was stated to be only an ad-hoc communication issued by the bank informing the petitioners about the position subject to the provisions contained in the Pension Regulations finally to be adopted by the Bank. The concerned were categorically informed that the details provided in Annexure-J were only provisional and were subject to changes/corrections if any, after the final adoption of the Pension Regulations by the Bank. It was not denied that the Indian Banks' Association by the communication dated 9-10-1995 had given clarification about the Pension Scheme, which was based on the Pension Regulations finally adopted by the banks after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and the Central Government. It was submitted that having regard to the provisions of the Pension Regulations, the writ petitioners who voluntarily retired were not entitled to the pension under the regulations. The action of the respondent was claimed to be legal, valid and proper, which did not violate any of the fundamental right as was alleged by the employees.

8. Vide Annexure-B dated 16-12-1991 the eligibility criteria for officer seeking voluntary retirement was relaxed and persons who had completed 50 years of age or 25 years of total service as an officer-employee or otherwise whichever was earlier were entitled to be eligible for the benefit of the aforesaid scheme. The agreement which was signed by AIBOG on pension issue with Indian Banks' Association on 29-10-1993 -- provided the package of superannuation scheme with benefits of pension, gratuity, emoluments in lieu of privilege leave. Officer in service as on 31-10-1993 had a choice between pension and contributory Provident Fund. The Indian Banks' Association issued a notice on its own behalf and on behalf of its member-banks who were party to the settlement pension signed on 29-10-1993 informing the employees (workmen and officers) who retired on or after 1-1-1986 and on or after 31-10-1993 that they may, if they so choose, apply in the format prescribed by the Bank for membership of the Pension Scheme. A reference to Annexure-F by which the Pension Scheme was introduced would show that the appellant- Bank had declared;