Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.33 seconds)Uco Bank And Ors vs Sanwar Mal on 11 March, 2004
Further, the challenge laid by the petitioner to the validity
and constitutionality of Regulation 22 of the Regulations was also
turned down by the Division Bench, vide order dated 5.10.2010
passed in WP(C) No.1502/2003, wherein it was particularly noted that
W.P.(C) 7414/2014 Page 11 of 15
similar Regulations invoked by many a Bank, including the respondent
No.1/Bank, were considered by the Supreme Court in the case of
Sanwar Mal (supra) and it was concluded that the Regulation 22 of
the Regulations was neither arbitrary and nor did it carve out an
unreasonable classification that was a requirement of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The said Regulation only disentitles an
employee who has resigned from service from becoming a member of
the Fund as those employees have received their retirement benefits
earlier. While dismissing the aforecited petition, the Division Bench
also took note of the fact that the petitioner had raised the said issue
in the civil suit instituted by him but was unsuccessful therein.
Reserve Bank Of India & Anr vs Cecil Dennis Solomon & Anr on 4 December, 2003
Since the pension
regulations disqualify an employee, who has
resigned, from claiming pension the respondent
cannot claim membership of the fund. In our view,
Regulation 22 provides for disqualification of
employees who have resigned from service and for
those who have been dismissed or removed from
service. Hence, we do not find any merit in the
arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent
that Regulation 22 makes an arbitrary and
unreasonable classification repugnant to Article
14 of the Constitution by keeping out such class of
employees. The view we have taken is supported by the
judgment of this Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India
and Anr. vs. Cecil Dennis Solomon and Anr. reported as
(2004) ILLJ 782 SC. Before concluding we may state
that Clause 22 is not in the nature of penalty as alleged. It
only disentitles an employee who has resigned from
service from becoming a member of the Fund. Such
employees have received their retiral benefits earlier. The
pension scheme, as stated above, only provides for a
second retiral benefit. Hence there is no question of
penalty being imposed on such employees as alleged. The
pension scheme only provides for an avenue for
investment to retirees. They are provided avenue to put in
their savings and as a term or condition which is more in
W.P.(C) 7414/2014 Page 5 of 15
the nature of an eligibility criteria the scheme disentitles
such category of employees out of it."
M.R.Prabhakar & Ors vs Canara Bank & Ors on 3 October, 2012
In the reply to
the legal notice, the Bank pointed out that the aforesaid judgment
was distinguished by the Supreme Court in a subsequent decision in
the case of M.R. Prabhakar & Ors. Vs. Canara Bank & Ors. reported as
W.P.(C) 7414/2014 Page 7 of 15
(2012) 9 SCC 671, wherein the court had made the following
observations that are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors vs Government Of A.P. & Ors on 7 March, 2007
16. This Court has heard counsels for the parties and considered the
arguments advanced by them in the light of the documents placed on
record. It is quite apparent from the facts of the case that in the
past, in the litigation that was initiated by the petitioner for seeking
conversion of his resignation to voluntary retirement and for release
of pension in his favour, the said plea had been turned down by the
Civil Judge in the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction
instituted by him in the year 1999. For reasons best known to the
petitioner, he had elected not to file an appeal against the said
judgment and as a result, the same has a binding effect on the
parties.
1