Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.44 seconds)Section 50 in The State Bank Of India Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Commander Head Quarter, Calcutta vs Capt. Biplabendra Chanda on 5 November, 1996
In the case of Commander, Head Quarter, Calcutta & Ors. vs.
Capt. Biplabendra Chanda, 1997(1)SCC 208, a two Judge Bench
of this Court had to examine the new/revised Rules which had
reduced the requisite minimum qualifying service for earning
pension while considering the case of a person who had
retired earlier and was ineligible to get pension under the
Rules in force then. This Court held that he could not be
given eligibility for pension by victual of the amended
Rule. In the said case, the Bench examined the fact
situation wherein the claimant was a Commissioned Officer.
He retired on 18.5.1982. On the date of his retirement only
2/3rd of pre-commissioned service was allowed to be counted
towards qualifying service for earning pensionary benefits.
The pension Rules were amended with effect from 1.1.1986 and
the full commissioned service was directed to be taken into
account for working out the qualifying service. While the
High Court allowed the writ petition based on Nakara's case
(supra) this Court held that Nakara's case has no
application as the claimant was ineligible for grant of
pension because on the date of his retirement he did not
possess the qualifying service as per the Rules then
existing. It becomes obvious, therefore, that when the
person earlier retiring from service is not eligible to get
pension as per the Rules, then if by subsequent prospective
amendment of the Rules such class of persons are brought
within the sweep of pension provisions, these provisions
have to be treated as a new scheme of pension which cannot
apply to those employees who retired prior to the advent of
such a new pension scheme. The fact situation in the
present case is almost parallel. We do not see any reason
why the ratio of the said decision cannot be applied to the
present case.
The State Of Punjab vs Justice .S. Dewan(Retired Chief ... on 25 April, 1997
He then invited our attention to a
decision of this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Justice S.S
Dewan (Retired Chief Justice) & Ors. 1997(4) SCC 569. In
that case a three Judge Bench of this Court, speaking
through Nanavati, J., had to examine the question whether
the pension scheme as amended on 22.2.1990 available to
introduction of a new retrial benefit or it only liberalised
an existing retrial benefit. In that case the question of
computation of pension of judicial officers governed by
pension scheme came up for consideration. Before an
amendment of the said scheme on 22.2.1990, the retiring
judicial officer was not entitled for computation of his
pension to club the period of practice at the bar before
joining the judiciary with judicial service thereafter. But
by the amendment dated 22.2.90 the period of practice at the
bar up to 10 years was thereafter permitted to be treated as
part of qualifying service for computation of pension of
judicial officers. This amendment was considered to be
conferring a new retrial benefit and was not held to be a
liberalisation of an existing benefit. The ratio of
Nakara's decision was distinguished for coming to the
aforesaid conclusion. It was held that:
R.L. Marwaha vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 August, 1987
The next
decision on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for
the appellant is in the case of R.L.Marwaha Vs. Union of
India & Ors. 1987(4) SCC 31. In this case a Bench of two
learned Judges of this Court speaking through
E.S.Venkataramaiah, J., (as he then was) had to consider the
question whether the ex-government servants who were holding
pensionable posts when absorbed by autonomous bodies could
be treated differently while granting benefit of counting
their period of government service as part of qualifying
service for computing pension when they retired from the
autonomous body. It was held on the facts of this case that
the benefit of Govt. Order should be extended to all
pensioners who had rendered service earlier in the Central
Government and extra benefits given to the pensioners from
the date of the OM could not be denied to those pensioners
who had retired prior to the corning into operation of the
said OM. The aforesaid decision clearly indicates that once
all the ex-government servants who were pensioners formed
the same class, then if extra benefit has to be given to
these pensioners by subsequent Om then all such pensioners
who were alive and available to receive the benefit of the
Om prospectively could not be denied the same only on the
ground that some of them had retired earlier to the OM and
others retired thereafter. this decision also proceeds on
the admitted factual position that all the erstwhile
government servants were pensioners and were forming the
same class and hence the were entitled to equal treatment
when at the time of coming into operation of the Govt.
Order they were available to receive the benefit of the said
Govt. Order.
T.S. Thiruvengadam vs The Secretary To Govt. Of India, ... on 17 February, 1993
This Court in the said decision examined a similar fact
situation as was found in T. S. Thiruvengadam case
(supra). In that case an employee who was serving in the
State service was subsequently selected as an employee of
the Ministry in the Central government service. The
question was whether while computing the quantum of pension
to be payable to him his earlier service in the State could
be clubbed or not. The Circular issued by the Central
Government conferring the benefit of such State service to
only retirees after the date of issuance of the circular,
and not to the appellant before this Court who had retired
earlier to the issuance of this circular, was held to be
discriminatory if so interpreted. It was held that as the
appellant was already fanning a part of the same class of
pensioners additional benefit for computation of pension on
the basis of the subsequent circular could not be denied to
him as such denial would be arbitrary and fall foul on the
touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
The appellant's contention before the respondent authorities
was that though he had resigned on 31st July, 1984 as he had
already completed 20 years of pensionable service by that
time the benefit of the amended provision of Clause (c) of
rule 22(1) of the Rules could be available to him at least
prospectively from 20th September, 1986 i.e. from the date
on which amended provision came into force. The said request
was rejected by the respondent Bank authorities on the ground
that the said amended provision which introduced anew pension
scheme for covering the additional class of retiring employee
on completion of 20 years of pensionable service, instead of
earlier requirement of 25 years of pensionable service, could
not retrospectively apply in the case of the appellant who
had resigned and ceased to be a Bank employee more than two
years prior to coming into force of this amended pension
scheme. The appellant thereafter carried the matter by way
of a writ in the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The
learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition, following
the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
D S Nakara & Ors. Vs. Union of India, 1983 (1) SCC 305,
held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of
amended provision of rule 22(1)(c) from the date of coming
into operation of the said provision as he was a member of
the employees pension fund at the time when he ceased to be a
Bank employee and he had already completed the requisite 20
years of pensionable service by that time. the Division
Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal moved by the
respondent Bank took a contrary view and came to the
conclusion that the amended provision of the rule introduced
a new scheme for covering entirely a district class of
erstwhile employees who had retired from Bank service and the
said provision could not have any retrospective effect and
could not cover the case of the appellant who had retired
more than two years prior to the coming into force of the
amended scheme of pension. That is how the appellant is
before us in these proceedings.
The Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs K. Jayaraman on 3 February, 1997
Shri Divan, learned senior counsel for the
respondent also invited our attention to another decision of
this Court in Govt. of T.N. & Anr. Vs. K.Jayaraman 1997
(9) SCC 606, wherein a Bench of two Judges of this Court
presided over by K.Ramaswamy, J, had to examine a similar
question. In that case the respondent at the time of his
retirement was not eligible to get the benefit of pension
scheme. The pension Rules were subsequently amended after
his retirement and as he had survived after the amendment of
these pension Rules he put forward his claim for pension at
least from that date. The Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras accepted this request of the respondent. While
up-turning the decision of the Tribunal, this Court held
that:
Union Of India & Ors vs Lieut (Mrs.) E.Iacats on 6 August, 1997
It was held that the respondent who had voluntarily
retired prior thereto was not entitled to the benefit of the
said rule. The fact situation in the present case also in
parallel to the one examined by this Court in the aforesaid
decision. We may also lastly refer to a decision of two
Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India & Ors. vs.
Lieut (Mrs.) E.Lacts, 1997(7) SCC 334. Sujata Manohar, J,
in that case examined liberalised pension scheme by which
the group of employees who were earlier not covered by the
pension scheme were conferred benefit from a given date. As
the respondent before the Court had already retired prior to
that date, he was held not entitled to benefits of
liberalised pension scheme. It was held that such a
respondent could not claim of discriminatory treatment in
the grant of pension because there was no provision for
grant of pension in the terms and conditions of her
appointment which she had herself accepted. The appellant's
case also falls in the same category of cases which were
examined in the aforesaid decision by this Court. This
decision also, therefore, goes in favour of the respondent
and against the appellant.