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

2009 Supreme(SC) 1387

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMA
United Bank of India
Versus
Pijush Kanti Nandy & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5084 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.26879 of 2005)
Date of Judgment : 04-08-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:Dhruv Mehta, Yashraj Singh Deora, Mohit Abraham, T.S. Sabarish (for M/s. K.L. Mehta & Co.), Advocates. For the Respondents:Rana Mukherjee, Siddharth Gautam, Goodwill Indeevar, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINTS
The word ‘otherwise’ when following an enumeration should receive an ejusdem generis interpretation.
Use of word ‘means’ makes the definition restrictive.
Regulation 29(5) would be attracted only in a case where the concerned employee has completed 20 years of qualifying service.

Headnote:(a) Interpretation – Words and phrases – Otherwise – When following an enumeration – Should receive an ejusdem generis interpretation. (Para 12)

       2008 (8) SCALE 223; 46 LJMC 167 – Relied upon

       (b) United Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 – Regulation 2(w) – Qualifying service – Use of word means – Makes the definition restrictive – Restricted to service rendered while on duty (Para 18)

       (1989) 2 SCC 458; (2008 (7) SCC 29 – Relied upon

       (c) United Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 –Regulation 2(w) and 29 – Pension – Qualifying service – Word otherwise in Regulation 2(w) – Applies to the classes noticed in Chapter IV of the Regulations – Not for the purpose of extending period of extending period of qualifying service – Qualifying service presupposes continuation of employer-employee relationship at all relevant times – Regulation 29(5) would be attracted only in a case where the concerned employee has completed 20 years of qualifying service – Not applicable presently. (Para 13, 20)

       2008 (8) SCALE 223; 46 LJMC 167; 2009 (4) SCALE 576; (2007) 6 SCC 16; (2007) 10 SCC 609 – Relied upon

       (2009) 1 SCALE 168 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       Respondent No.1 joined his services in the appellant bank as MMG Scale-II. On or about 13.2.1989, he sought voluntary retirement in terms of Regulation 19 of the Regulations. The Bank accepted his offer vide its letter dated 8.5.1989. Respondent No.1 was allowed to take voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.5.1989.

       1.11.1993, The United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1993 were introduced for employees of the appellant-Bank. Option from the employees retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.11.1993 was sought for by the appellant on or before 30.7.1994. However, the last date for receiving such option was extended till 30.9.1994 vide a circular dated 30.9.1994.

       On or about 1.9.2001, the respondent No.1 filed an application for exercising his option for pension. The appellant, vide its letter dated 10.10.2001 informed him that he was not entitled to give any option for the said purpose.

       The respondent filed a writ petition which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The appellant-Bank preferred an intra court appeal thereagainst which was dismissed by the Division Bench.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is unsustainable.

       Result:

       Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Service Conditions of the employees of United Bank of India are governed by United Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (for short, `the Regulations).

Regulation 19 of the Regulations reads as under:

"19.(1) The age of retirement of an officer employee shall be as determined by the Board in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time—

Provided that the Bank may, at its discretion, on review by the Special Committee as provided hereinafter in sub-regulation (2) retire an officer employee on or at any time after the completion of 55 years of age or on or at any time after the completion of 30 years of total service as an officer employee or otherwise, whichever is earlier;

Provided further that before retiring an officer employee, at least three months notice in writing or an amount equivalent to three months substantive salary/pay and allowances, shall be given to such officer employee;

Provided also that nothing in this regulation shall be deemed to preclude an officer employee from retiring earlier pursuant to the option exercised by him in accordance with the rules in the Bank.

Explanation :

An officer employee will retire on the last day of the month in which he completes his age of retirement.

(2) The Bank shall constitute a Special Committee, consisting of not less than three members, to review, whether an officer employee should be retired in accordance with the first proviso to this regulation. Such Committee shall, from time to time, review the case of each officer employee and no order of retirement shall be made unless the Special Committee recommends in writing to the Competent Authority the retirement of the officer employee."

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Respondent No.1 herein joined his services in the appellant bank as MMG Scale-II. On or about 13.2.1989, he sought voluntary retirement in terms of Regulation 19 of the Regulations. The Bank accepted his offer vide its letter dated 8.5.1989. Respondent No.1 was allowed to take voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.5.1989.

4. On or about 1.11.1993, The United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1993 were introduced for employees of the appellant-Bank. Option from the employees retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.11.1993 was sought for by the appellant on or before 30.7.1994. However, the last date for receiving such option was extended till 30.9.1994 vide a circular dated 30.9.1994.

On or about 1.9.2001, the respondent No.1 filed an application for exercising his option for pension. The appellant, vide its letter dated 10.10.2001 informed him that he was not entitled to give any option for the said purpose.

Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said letter, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, which was marked as W.P. No.490 of 2002, praying therein for the following reliefs:

"a) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and each of them their men, servants, agents, and assigns to act in accordance with the law and allow Pension Benefits to the writ petitioner from the date of his retirement in terms of the United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulation 1995;

b) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and especially the respondent Nos1, 2 and 3 to forthwith cancel and/or rescind the letter dated 10th October, 2001 being Annexure `P-9 hereto;

(c) Writ in the nature of Prohibition directing and commanding the respondents and each of them to desist from withholding the Pension Benefits to the petitioner;

(d) A writ in the nature of Certiorari directing and commanding the respondents and each of them to transmit and produce all the records relating to this case to the said Honble Court after certifying the same to that conscionable justice may be rendered;

e) An order of injunction restraining the respondents and/or each of them their servants, men, agents & assig




































































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