P. N. Shukla vs Union Of India And Ors. on 29 September, 2015
11. Now, the last question is as to whether the second and
third provisos given to Regulation 26 of the Pension
Regulations are required to be struck down as discriminatory
in nature as contended by Sri Rajagopal. Even on this
question, I am unable to accede to the submission of Sri
Rajagopal. As noticed by me earlier, when the Pension
Scheme is made operative retrospectively, Regulation 26 of
the Pension Regulations, in my view, is prospective in
operation. Further, payment of pension was not one of the
conditions of service, which was applicable to the employees
of the Bank till passing of the Pension Regulations.
Therefore, merely because the benefit of Regulation 26 is not
given to all the employees including the employees who have
retired from service, it is not possible to take the view that the
second and third provisos given to Regulation 26 are liable to
be struck down as discriminatory in nature. The benefit of
previous service is an additional concession given by the
Pension Regulations; and that too limited number of posts
which satisfy the requirements laid down in the said
regulations. While framing the Pension Regulations, since
new benefits are extended, in my view, it is open to the Bank
to make it prospective in operation. It is not the case where
the petitioner and other employees of the Bank were entitled
for the benefit of the Pension Scheme and an additional
benefit under the scheme is sought to be given to the existing
benefits.