IMPORTANT POINT
When Bank gave option for switching to pension scheme, not doing so disentitled the appellants to pension on accepting VRS.

Headnote:(a) Bank of Madura Employees' Pension Regulation, 1995 – Regulation 2(ze) r/w 2(zea)– Early Retirement Option 2003 – Must be deemed to be a voluntary retirement scheme within the meaning of Regulation 2(ze). (Para 4)
       (b) Bank of Madura Employees' Pension Regulation, 1995 – Regulation 35, cl. (i), (ii) and (v) r/w Regulation 3(9)(b) and ERO 2003 Cl. 8D – Pensionary benefit on VRS – Regulations clearly stipulating that only those employees who exercised their option for pension under Reg. 35(i) and (ii) would be entitled to pension on VRS/ERO 2003 – None of the appellants opting for pension though time limit extended thrice over – Not entitled to pension. (Para 17)
       Facts of the case:
       The appellants in these appeals were originally inducted into the service of Bank of Madura. By virtue of a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Reserve Bank of India, the Bank of Madura was merged with the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Bank with effect from 10.03.2001. Consequent upon the aforesaid merger, the appellants became the employees of the ICICI Bank.
       All the appellants are retirees, having sought voluntary retirement from the ICICI Bank. Their retirement was operative with effect from 31.07.2003. The appellants' claim is for pension. The instant claim emerges from the Bank of Madura Employees' Pension Regulation, 1995.
       Finding of the Court:
       Appellants are not entitled to pension.
       Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

J.S.Khehar, J.

Leave granted.

The appellants in these appeals were originally inducted into the service of Bank of Madura. By virtue of a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Reserve Bank of India, the Bank of Madura was merged with the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Bank (hereinafter referred to as the `ICICI Bank') with effect from 10.03.2001. Consequent upon the aforesaid merger, the appellants became the employees of the ICICI Bank.

2. All the appellants are retirees, having sought voluntary retirement from the ICICI Bank. Their retirement was operative with effect from 31.07.2003. The appellants' claim is for pension. The instant claim emerges from the Bank of Madura Employees' Pension Regulation, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the `1995 Regulations'). The 1995 Regulations define the voluntary retirement scheme in Regulation 2(ze). The same is being extracted hereunder:

“`V.R.S.' means Bank of Madura Employees' Voluntary Retirement Scheme enclosed to the circular CO.STF:39/94-95 dated July 21, 1994, or any other specific scheme, that may be implemented in future bringing such scheme under the definition of this regulation. The employees who have completed 20 years of service in the bank and who have retired subsequent to the expiry of the scheme mentioned in the Circular CO:GM:CIR:2/93-94 dated May 20, 1993, and who were extended the additional benefits in addition to the normal retirement benefits shall be deemed and considered to have retired under V.R.S.”

(emphasis is ours)

3. During the course of hearing, learned senior counsel for the appellants contended, that the voluntary retirement scheme contemplated under Regulation 2(ze), would include any other specific scheme, that may be implemented in future, bringing such scheme under the 1995 Regulations. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellants, that the Early Retirement Option 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the `ERO 2003) issued by the ICICI Bank on 17.06.2003, was such a scheme, which was implemented after the promulgation of the 1995 Regulations, and was brought within the definition of Regulation 2 (ze). In order to substantiate the instant contention, learned senior counsel for the appellants invited our attention to Regulation 2(zea). The same is being extracted hereunder:

“Voluntary Retirement Scheme means and to be understood as ICICI Bank Early Retirement Option 2003 scheme and this amendment in benefits will cover only those employees who avail of such early retirement option under ICICI Bank Early Retirement option 2003 scheme. (effective from 01.7.2003)”

(emphasis is ours)

4. In view of Regulation 2(zea) there can be no doubt whatsoever, that the ERO 2003 must be deemed to be a voluntary retirement scheme within the meaning of Regulation 2(ze) of the 1995 Regulations.

5. Having satisfied this Court, that the appellants would be entitled to the benefits of the 1995 Regulations, on the basis of ERO 2003, learned senior counsel for the appellants invited our attention to Regulation 35. The Regulation, as it was originally framed, comprised of (iv) clauses. The same is being extracted hereunder:

“35. Pension to Employees retiring under VRS (i) An employee who has opted for pension and who retired under VRS enumerated in Regulation 2(ze) of these regulations and who has completed twenty years of service in the bank shall be eligible for pension from the date of his attaining the age of superannuation i.e., the date on which he would have retired had he continued in the employment if he is otherwise eligible under these regulations.

(ii) The eligible employees who have already retired under VRS may exercise their irrevocable option in writing in the format prescribed by the Bank within sixty days from the date of notice to be sent to them. Such employees have to refund the bank's entire contribution to the Provident Fund including interest received with further simple interest at the rate of six percent per a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 809

IMPORTANT POINTWhen Bank gave option for switching to pension scheme, not doing so disentitled the appellants to pension on accepting VRS.

IMPORTANT POINT
When Bank gave option for switching to pension scheme, not doing so disentitled the appellants to pension on accepting VRS.