Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 pursuant to rejoinder being filed by the petitioners. It is contended that term "resignation" and "retirement" are separate and have distinct meaning as also consequence in service jurisprudence. It is submitted that if retirement and resignation are treated at par it will be in contravention of the express language of the regulations and will amount to exercising the powers of regulation making authority which is not permissible. The scheme has been framed after following the proper procedure under section 19 of the Banking Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking Act, 1970 with the approval of the Central Government. The regulations are, therefore, statutory in nature and need to be implemented by applying strict interpretation. On resignation from service an employee is debarred from qualifying for pension and under the regulations he forfeits the past service rendered by him, whereas under voluntary retirement an employee is qualified for the retirement benefits under the scheme. The petitioners had resigned. They have thus forfeited their service. It is then set out that the Officers who resigned from the services prior to coming into effect of the scheme cannot be equated with the officers who opted for voluntary retirement from the services under the pension regulations. The petitioners, it is contended, have received the terminal benefits as admissible under the Rules which were in existence at that time. The employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and respondent has come to an end. The petitioner have received their full dues as applicable and there is no moral and legal obligation on the respondent to pay the petitioners further benefits under the new scheme. The petitioners have no legal right to claim pension. Reference is then made to various Special Leave Petitions pending before the Apex Court and also the stay granted in one of those matters.

The Court further observed that the respondent before it cannot claim the benefit of scheme which came into operation from a date subsequent to the date of retirement. The judgment in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India was distinguished.

9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has now placed before us the judgment of the Apex Court in Reserve Bank of India and Anr. v. Cecil Dennis Solomon and Anr., 2004 (100) FLR 441. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court has been set aside. The Apex Court has now clearly held that in service jurisprudence, the expressions superannuation, voluntary retirement, compulsory retirement and resignation convey different connotations. It will be gainful to reproduce the following paragraphs:-

"9. In service jurisprudence, the expressions superannuation, voluntary retirement, compulsory retirement and resignation convey different connotations. Voluntary retirement and resignation involve voluntary acts on the part of the employee to leave service. Though both involve voluntary acts, they operate differently. One of the basic distinctions is that in case of resignation it can be tendered at any time; but in the case of voluntary retirement, it can only be sought for after rendering prescribed period of qualifying service. Other fundamental distinction is that in case of the former, normally retiral benefits are denied but in case of the latter, same is not denied. In case of the former, permission or notice is not mandated, while in case of the latter, permission of the concerned employer is a requisite condition. Though resignation is a bilateral concept, and becomes effective on acceptance by the competent authority, yet the general rule can be displaced by the express provisions to the contrary. In Punjab National Bank v. P.K. Mittal, on interpretation of Regulation 20(2) of the Punjab National Bank Regulations, it was held that resignation would automatically take effect from the date specified in the notice as there was no provision for any acceptance or rejection of the resignation by the employer. In Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra, it was held in the case of a Judge of the High Court having regard to Article 217 of the Constitution that he has an unilateral right or privilege to resign his office and his resignation becomes effective from the date which he, of his own volition, chooses. But where there is a provision empowering the employer not to accept the resignation, on certain circumstances e.g. pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the employer can exercise the power.

It would have been possible to consider the said contention. However, in our opinion after the judgment of the Apex Court in Reserve Bank of India and Anr. v. Cecil Dennis Soloman and Anr. (supra) that contention will have to be rejected. We have already reproduced the relevant paragraphs of the judgment, which considering the expression voluntary resignation. The Apex Court has held that though both involve voluntary acts, they operate differently. Resignation can be tendered at any time, but voluntary retirement can only be sought after rendering prescribed period of qualified service. Similarly, retiral benefits are denied to those who have resigned, but in case of the latter the same is not denied. In the case of resignees some other distinctions are also set out. It is, therefore, clear that the Apex Court has sought to read the word "resignation" and "voluntary retirement" as two distinct words in service jurisprudence. The Pension Regulations in respect of the other banks are similar in nature to the Pension Regulations as introduced by the Reserve Bank of India. Infact the cut-off date as 1st January, 1986 came, because of the introduction of the Pension Regulations by the Reserve Bank of India consequent upon the acceptance of the recommendations of the IVth Pay Commission. It is in that context that the said Regulation was made applicable in so far as the banks are also concerned from that date. Apart from that it may be noted that in the settlement between the Unions and the Banks it was clearly set out that pension as a second retiral benefit scheme was being introduced in lieu of contributory provident fund and would be available to the category of employees set out in the settlement from 1st November, 1993 or the date of retirement, whichever is later. The persons eligible were (1) employees who join service of the bank on or after 1st November, 1993; (2) employees in service of the bank as on 31st October, 1993 and on or before 30th June, 1994 and also exercise an option in writing in response to bank's notice to this effect and to be given not later than 31st December, 1993 to become members of the pension scheme and to cease to be members of the contributory provident fund scheme with effect from 1st November, 1993 and irrevocably authorise the bank or the trustees of the contributory provident fund to transfer the entire contribution of the bank along with entire interest accrued thereon to the credit of pension fund to be created for this purpose; (3) retired employees who were in service of the bank/merged bank on or after 31st December, 1985 and retired on or after 1st January, 1986 but before 1st November, 1993 provided that such retired employees apply for it on their own on the format prescribed by each bank and refund within a period of six months reckoned from 1st November, 1993, to the bank, the banks contribution to the provident fund including interest. Apart from that under Clause 5, employees voluntarily retiring after 20 years of completed service as per provisions to be incorporated in the scheme would also get proportionate pension. It is, therefore, clear that in so far as voluntary retirement is concerned,only those persons would be entitled who had put in 20 years of complete service as per provisions to be incorporated in the Scheme and would get proportionate pension. The settlement also provided that the pension scheme would be introduced from 1st November, 1993. It also provided that only a class of retirees, who had retired after 1st January, 1986 but before 1st November, 1993 would be eligible provided they refund the banks contribution to the Provident Fund along with interest. We have noted earlier that in the year 1991 the Bank of Maharashtra Officers' Service Regulations had been amended whereby an employee was permitted to retire voluntarily from the service of the bank at any time after the age of 55 years. Their pensionary benefits were to be the same as that of retirees considering Rule 2 of the amendment. In so far as Pension Regulations are concerned now Regulation 29 for the first time provides for pension on voluntary retirement and the regulation is clear in as much as it applies only to those who voluntarily retire after the 1st day of November, 1993 provided such employee has completed 20 years of qualified service. Apart from that a Circular by the bank which was issued on 10th November, 1995 further clarified the position by setting out in paragraph 8 as under:-