IMPORTANT POINT
The benefit of exercising option for pension under the Union Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, cannot be extended to the employees who had retired on medical grounds with simultaneous appointment of the dependents on compassionate grounds.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Union Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995—Regulation 29—Claim of grant of pension under 1995 Regulations—Entitlement and eligibility—Employee having retired as award staff on medical grounds with simultaneous appointment of dependants on compassionate grounds—Not entitled to grant of pension under the Pension Regulations—Respondent 1 joined services of Union Bank as a Peon in 1960—In 1991, he had submitted an application to the authority seeking retirement on medical grounds with further request to give employment to his dependent son—Request of respondent 1 was accepted and he was retired as Daftary from the service w.e.f. 1-11-1993—In Pension Regulations 1995, pension option was made available to employees of appellant bank in lieu of employer’s contribution in the Provident Fund on the employees surrendering the same to the bank—Appellant bank called for option to be exercised by employees who had retired from service between 1-1-1986 and 31-10-1993—Claim made by respondent 1 was rejected on ground that he was not eligible to the pension scheme as he retired under different scheme prior to date of enforcement of the Pension Regulations—Whether High Court was justified in allowing writ petition filed by respondent 1 relying upon decision of single judge in Madhav Kirtikar, 1997(2) Bom C.R. 524—(No)—Whether claim of respondent 1 who admittedly was an award staff at the time of retirement is covered under the Pension Regulations 1995—(No).
Held : The appellant-bank in its affidavit filed before the High Court has categorically stated and pleaded that as per the advise of the Director (IR), Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division, IR Section, the benefit of exercising option for pension cannot be extended to the employees who had retired on medical grounds with simultaneous appointment of the dependents on compassionate grounds. The Indian Banks’ Association also advised the appellant-bank that the concept of voluntary retirement for the purpose of receiving pension on voluntary retirement under Regulation 29 is not available to the award staff. The respondent No.1 has not denied his status as an award staff when he sought retirement on medical grounds. Thus, the respondent No.1 cannot take the benefit of the letter dated 20.09.1993 received by him from the Chief Manager of the appellant-bank, treating him as voluntarily retiree from the service of the bank w.e.f. 01.11.1993 under the Pension Regulations as nomenclature of the words ‘voluntarily retired’ used in the said letter will not change the status of the respondent No.1 from award staff to any other category of the employee of the appellant-bank. Thus, Regulation 29, upon which reliance is placed by the respondent No.1, is not attracted in his case and his claim for pension is not covered thereunder.(Para 22)

JUDGMENT

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.04.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 567 of 2002 whereby and whereunder Venkatesh Gopal Mahishi has been held entitled for pension under the Union Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995.

2. The facts, in brief, are that Venkatesh Gopal Mahishi, respondent No.1 herein, joined the services of the Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant-bank’) as a Peon on 02.05.1960. On 19.02.1991, the respondent No.1 had submitted an application to the authority seeking retirement on medical grounds with further request to give employment to his dependent son on compassionate ground. The request of the respondent No.1 was accepted by the appellant-bank and he was retired as Daftary from the service w.e.f. 01.11.1993 and later on his son has been given employment.

3. The appellant-bank, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970), after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government, framed regulations called Union Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short “Pension Regulations”), whereunder pension option was made available to the employees of the appellant-bank in lieu of the employer’s contribution in the Provident Fund on the employees surrendering the same to the bank. The appellant-bank called for option to be exercised by the employees who had retired from service between 01.01.1986 and 31.10.1993. The respondent No.1 accordingly submitted an application on 28.06.1994 for pension under the Pension Regulations, but his claim was rejected by the competent authority on 12.11.1994 inter alia on the ground that the respondent No.1 was not eligible to the pension scheme as he was retired under different scheme prior to the date of enforcement of the Pension Regulations.

4. The respondent No.1, after about seven years from the date of the rejection of his claim for the grant of the benefits of the pension scheme to him, filed Civil Writ Petition No.567 of 2002 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay seeking grant of pension. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition primarily relying on an earlier decision of learned Single Judge in the case of Madhav K. Kirtikar v. Bank of India [1997 (2) Bom. C. R. 524]. Now, the appellant-bank is before us in this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and other material on record.

Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-bank, has broadly made threefold submissions: (i) that Pension Regulations do not apply to the respondent No.1 as he is an award staff; (ii) that the respondent No.1 has sought retirement on medical grounds covered by the non-statutory scheme, which is different scheme and on his request his son was appointed on compassionate grounds, thus, the respondent No.1 is not entitled to take two benefits under different schemes; and (3) that even if the respondent No.1 is held eligible for pension, the Pension Regulations will not be applicable to him as the respondent No.1 was retired on 01.11.1993 and the Pension Regulations are made applicable to those employees only who have voluntarily retired w.e.f. 01.01.1986 to 31.10.1993 under the statutory scheme/rules of retirement.

Per contra, Mr. Nitin S. Tambwekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, contended that the claim of the respondent No.1 for the grant of pension is fully covered by the Pension Regulations and the stand of the appellant-bank that the Pension Regulations are not applicable to the respondent No.1 as he had sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds, is not ten

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 51

IMPORTANT POINTThe benefit of exercising option for pension under the Union Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, cannot be extended to the employees who had retired on medical grounds with simultaneous appointment of the dependents on compassionate grounds.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
The benefit of exercising option for pension under the Union Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, cannot be extended to the employees who had retired on medical grounds with simultaneous appointment of the dependents on compassionate grounds.