Back
2000 Supreme(SC) 713
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C.Lahoti : S.R.Babu
Bank Of India
Versus
Indu Rajagopalan
Case No. : 6959 of 1997
Date of Decision : 4/5/00
Where no significant financial burden or material difference exists between voluntary and ordinary retirees, a comprehensive pension scheme applicable to all employees should be extended to voluntary retirees, and arbitrary distinctions cannot be made.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Pension Scheme - Applicability of subsequent regulations to employees who retired under voluntary retirement schemes - Where a comprehensive Pension Scheme is framed and applicable uniformly to all employees, and there is no significant financial burden or distinction between employees who voluntarily retired and those who ordinarily retired, the authorities cannot make a distinction to deny the application of subsequent regulations to those who retired voluntarily. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Certain employees retired under a voluntary retirement scheme between January 1, 1986, and October 31, 1993. Subsequently, a comprehensive Pension Scheme was introduced effective from November 1, 1993, applicable to all employees. The dispute concerned whether the benefits of this subsequent scheme could be extended to those who had already voluntarily retired during the specified period.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there was no significant financial burden or material difference between the voluntary retirees and ordinary retirees. Consequently, the distinction made by the authorities in not applying the subsequent regulations was unjustified.
Issues: Whether the Pension Scheme applicable from November 1, 1993, should be extended to employees who had voluntarily retired prior to its commencement, specifically between January 1, 1986, and October 31, 1993.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of any significant financial burden or actual difference between voluntary and ordinary retirees, regulations framed subsequent to retirement should be applied uniformly, and authorities are not justified in creating a distinction between the two categories of retirees. (Para 3)
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
service law
-
pension
- voluntary retirement scheme
- pension scheme coverage
-
bank employees
- retirement benefits
-
pension
-
practice and procedure
-
appeal
- special leave petition
- dismissal of appeal
-
appeal
(1) DELAY condoned. Leave granted in SLP(C) 7639/1999.
(2) HAVING heard learned counsel for the appellants at length and having gone through the judgments of the learned Single Judge and of the Division Bench of the High Court, we are satisfied that the view taken by the High Court is fair and reasonable.
(3) ALL that has happened is in such of the banks where a Scheme for voluntary retirement was available, certain employees retired under that scheme. Now a comprehensive Pension Scheme has been framed which came into force w.e.f. November 1, 1993 and applicable uniformly to all Bank employees which provides for voluntary retirement as well. The applicability of these Rules to those employees who have voluntarily retired w.e.f. January 1, 1986 to October 31, 1993 is raised in these matters. It is not possible for Shri V.R. Reddy learned senior counsel who appears for the appellants to point out that there is any significant financial or other burden or difference so far as those who had voluntarily retired and those who had ordinarily retired. In that event where there is no distinction, the authorities having sought to make a distinction and not applied the regulations framed subsequent to their retirement, the High Court has given appropriate directions. We also notice that the number of employees who have retired in this manner is also very small. Therefore we think no interference is called for in these appeals. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
