2011 (2) Supreme 185
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Sudhir Kumar Consul — Appellant
versus
Allahabad Bank — Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 1982-1983 of 2011
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 34172-34173 of 2009)
Decided on : 21-2-2011
(b) Allahabad Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979 – Regulation 46 – Vires – Vires of any subordinate legislation can be challenged on the ground of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and offending Article 14 of the Constitution – Regulation 46 (1) laying down a reasonable criteria for differentiation between the officers appointed prior to or on 01.07.1979 and after the said date – It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 9)
(1994) 4 SCC 68; (1986) 3 SCC 501; 1991 Supp (2) SCC 544; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 664; (1996) 10 SCC 536; (1999) 3 SCC 414; (2000) 3 SCC 733; (2000) 3 SCC 736; (2004) 2 SCC 76; (2005) 6 SCC 754; (2006) 5 SCC 65 – Relied upon
(c) Judicial Review – Sympathies cannot override the Rules and Regulations. (Para 21)
(1994) 2 SCC 718 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Interpretation of Allahabad Bank Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1995 also known as new pension scheme is involved in this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
Regulation 46 is not ultra vires.
JUDGMENT
H.L. Dattu, J. —
1) Leave granted.
2) These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2009 of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Writ Petition No. 69 of 2007. By the impugned order, the Court has rejected the Writ Petition filed by the appellant for granting certain reliefs which would include claim for pensionary benefits under the New Pension Scheme, known as Allahabad Bank Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1995 [hereinafter referred to as, “the 1995 Regulations”].
3) The issue involved in the present appeals for our consideration is: Whether the appellant is eligible and entitled for the pensionary benefits under the Allahabad Bank Employees Pension Scheme, 1890 [hereinafter referred to as “Old Pension Scheme”] in terms of the Allahabad Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979 [hereinafter referred to as “the 1979 Regulations”].
4) The factual matrix in brief is as under :
The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in the Nainital Branch of the Allahabad Bank, the respondent herein, on 21.02.1976. Subsequently, the appellant was promoted to the post of JMG-Scale-I Officer Grade on 02.05.1983. The services of the appellant, after promotion, were governed by the 1979 Regulations. The Regulation 46 of 1979 Regulations provides retirees an option of gratuity or pension in lieu thereof, and further, the pension benefits for the retirees opting for pension are available under the Old Pension Scheme. Pursuant to the Tripartite Memorandum of Settlement [hereinafter referred to as “the Tripartite Settlement”], among the management, workers and officers of the various banks dated 29.10.1993, the respondent formulated a draft/proposed Allahabad Bank Employees (Pension) Regulation 1993 [hereinafter referred to as “the draft/proposed 1993 Regulations”] vide Instruction Circular no. 3904 dated 06.09.1994. The draft/proposed 1993 Regulations provided the option to the employees, who were on the rolls of the Bank as on 31.10.1993, to opt for pension as per the Old Pension Scheme plus Contributory Provident Fund [hereinafter referred to as “the CPF”]. Accordingly, the appellant claimed pension under the Old Pension Scheme in terms of the draft/proposed 1993 Regulations on 30.11.1994. Subsequently, on 29.09.1995, the respondent formally adopted the 1995 Regulations pursuant to the Tripartite Settlement. The 1995 Regulations superseded the draft/proposed 1993 Regulations vide Circular No. 4318 dated 16.11.1995 by further extending the benefit under the draft/proposed 1993 Regulations to the employees who were on the rolls of Bank as on 29.09.1995 to opt for pension as per the Old Pension Scheme plus CPF. Further, the 1995 Regulations, in express terms, have validated the earlier options exercised by the employees in accordance with the draft/proposed 1993 Regulations. The appellant applied for the voluntary retirement pursuant to the Allahabad Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as “the VRS-2000”], which was accepted on 12.04.2001 and the appellant stood relieved from the services of the Bank on 30.04.2001. After retirement, the appellant was offered gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by the respondent vide letter dated 01.09.2001, which the appellant declined to accept. Subsequently, on 09.10.2001, the appellant made a request to the competent authority for sanction of pension in lieu of gratuity, but his request was rejected by the General Manager (Personnel Administration), vide letter dated 13.11.2001 as not maintainable on the ground that an officer employed or appointed after 01.07.1079 is ineligible for pension under the Old Pension Scheme in view of Regulation 46 of the 1979 Regulations. In this backdrop, the appellant alternatively requested the General Manager (Personnel Administration) vide letter dated 05.03.2002 to accept his option for Pension under the 1995 Regulations and further intimated his provisional acceptance of the said gratu
Action Committee South Eastern Railway Pensioners v. Union of India
All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers’ Association v. Union of India
University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary
T.N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy
Ramrao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Assn.
State Government Pensioners’ Association v. State of A.P.
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramachhandra Ambekar
State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.