SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 1130

2007(6) Supreme 253
Supreme Court of india
(From Madras High Court)
S.B. Sinha & H.S. Bedi, JJ.
Indian Bank & Anr. — Petitioners
versus
N. Venkatramani — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 3989 of 2007
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 19062 of 2005]
Decided on : 30-08-2007

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Raju Ramchandran, Sr. Adv., Gaulam Awasthi and D. Mahesh Babu, Advocates.
For the Respondent:S. Balakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Subromonium Prasad, Advocates.

imporant point
Provisions of beneficial statutes/ Regulations should be construed liberally.

Headnote:(a)Judicial Review – Provisions of beneficial statutes/ Regulations should be construed liberally. (Para 13)

       (1976) 3 SCC 301 – Relied upon.

       (2005) 2 SCC 271 – Distinguished.

       (b)Judicial Review – While exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution, the superior courts even may not strike down a wrong order only because it would be lawful to do so – A discretionary relief may be refused to be extended to the appellant in a given case although the Court may find the same to be justified in law. (Para 17)

       (2005) 6 SCC 454 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case:

       Respondent was working with the appellant-Bank. The terms and conditions of grant of pension to the employees of the Bank are governed by the Indian Bank Employee’s Pension Regulation 1995.

       A voluntary retirement scheme was floated by the bank on 9.11.2000. Respondent requested for his voluntary retirement. It was accepted by an order dated 10.02.2001. By then, he had completed 14 years, 9 months and 17 days of service. He filed an application for grant of pension on the premise that he was eligible therefor. It was rejected on the ground that he had not completed 15 years of service. A writ petition filed by him was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. An intra-court appeal filed thereagainst has been allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court.

       Findings of the Court:

       No interference is required in the High Court’s order passed by construing the beneficial regulation liberally.

       Result : Appeal dismissed with cost.

JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Meaning of the term “broken period” for the purpose of grant of pension while implementing a voluntary retirement scheme is the question involved herein.

3.Respondent was working with the appellant Bank. The terms and conditions of grant of pension to the employees of the Bank are governed by the Indian Bank Employee’s Pension Regulation 1995 (for short “the Regulation”); Regulation 28 whereof, as amended with effect from 8.06.2002, reads as under:

“28.Superannuation Pension :

Superannuation pension shall be granted to an employee who has retired on his attaining the age of superannuation specified in the Service Regulations or Settlements.

Provided that, with effect from 1st day of September, 2000 pension shall also be granted to an employee who opts to retire before attaining the age of superannuation, but after rendering service for a minimum period of 15 years in terms of any Scheme that may be framed for such purpose by the Board with the approval of the Government.”

4.A voluntary retirement scheme was floated by the bank on 9.11.2000. Respondent requested for his voluntary retirement. It was accepted by an order dated 10.02.2001. By then, he had completed 14 years, 9 months and 17 days of service. He filed an application for grant of pension on the premise that he was eligible therefor. It was rejected on the ground that he had not completed 15 years of service. A writ petition filed by him was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. An intra-court appeal filed thereagainst has been allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment directing:

“Accordingly, while setting aside the order impugned in the Writ Petition, we direct the respondent to grant pensionary benefits under IBVRS 2000 as per the above referred to Regulations. The arrears of pension payable to the petitioner are liable to be settled with interest. As far as payment of interest is concerned, inasmuch as the petitioner ought to have been paid pension on the date when he was relieved from the services i.e. on 10.2.2001 and since for no fault of the petitioner, he was deprived of the benefits of pension, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled for interest on the arrears from the date of his superannuation till the date of its payments...”

5.Mr. Raju Ramchandran, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the High Court committed a manifest error in coming to the aforementioned conclusion as it failed to take into consideration that qualifying service for obtaining a pension was minimum fifteen years of service and Regulation 18 providing for ‘broken period’ would not come within the purview thereof.

6.Regulation 28 of the Regulations provides for grant of superannuation pension. Regulation 29 provides for pension on voluntary retirement after an employee has completed 20 years of qualifying service, clause (5) whereof reads as under:

“The qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this regulation shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty-three year and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation.”

7.Although the respondent has not superannuated in terms of the said scheme, he has taken his voluntary retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme in terms whereof an ex gratia payment equivalent to sixty days’ salary was to be paid apart from the other benefits, viz., gratuity payment or leave encashment, which are as under:

“1.Gratuity as per Gratuity Act/Service Gratuity as the case may be.

2.Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per Indian Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations 1995/Bank’s contribution towards PF as per rules.

3.Leave encashment as per rules.”

8.The matter relating to pension is governed by the pension regulations.

9.We may notice that althoug



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top