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

2011 Supreme(SC) 1159

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Reg. Mangr., Punjab National Bank and Anr. – Appellant
Vs.
Dharam Pal Singh – Respondents
C.A. No. 2132 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10926 of 2008)
Decided On: 24.02.2011

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant : Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.
For Respondents: K.S. Chauhan, Adv.

An employee taking voluntary retirement is entitled to pension only if they completed 15 years' qualifying service in the bank, as stipulated by the relevant regulations.

Headnote:

Pension Entitlement - Voluntary Retirement - Interpretation of Pension Regulations

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the entitlement of a respondent who took voluntary retirement from the appellant bank under the PNB Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 on completing 40 years of age, to receive pension.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent was not entitled to receive pension as he did not complete 15 years' qualifying service in the bank, as stipulated by the relevant regulations. The court also directed the payment of the bank's contribution towards the respondent's Provident Fund, which had been wrongly withheld.

Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent, who took voluntary retirement at 40 years of age, was entitled to receive pension despite not completing 15 years' qualifying service in the bank.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Regulations 14, 28, and 29, and the precedent set in Bank of Baroda and Ors. v. Ganpat Singh Deora, (2009) 3 SCC 217, to conclude that an employee taking voluntary retirement would be entitled to pension only if they completed 15 years' qualifying service in the bank.

Final Decision: The decision of the High Court was set aside, and the writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed. The civil appeal was allowed, subject to the direction to pay the bank's contribution towards the respondent's Provident Fund with interest.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard Mr. Dhruv Mehta, senior advocate appearing for the Appellants and Dr. K.S. Chauhan, advocate appearing for the Respondent.

3. The only question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the Respondent, who took voluntary retirement from the service of the Appellant Punjab National Bank under the PNB Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 on completing 40 years of age (and not 15 years of service, as the alternative criterion stipulated) is entitled to receive pension.

4. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held in favour of the Respondent employee applying the provisions of Regulation 14 of the Punjab National Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. The High Court has apparently overlooked that the opening words of Regulation 14 are 'Subject to the other conditions contained in these Regulations' and as a result, applied the provision of Regulation 14 somewhat out of context.

5. Be that as it may, the question arising in this case is no longer res integra and it is conclusively decided in favour of the Bank and against the Respondent in Bank of Baroda and Ors. v. Ganpat Singh Deora, (2009) 3 SCC 217. In this decision, this Court considered in detail Regulations 14, 28 and Regulation 29, both before and after its amendment and held that an employee taking voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme would be entitled to pension only in case he completed 15 years' qualifying service in the Bank.

6. The decision in Ganpat Singh Deora fully applies to the facts of the case. The decision of the High Court, being contrary to the aforesaid decision, must be set aside.

7. We, accordingly, set aside the decision of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the Respondent.

8. From the materials on record, however, it appears that the Respondent has not been paid the amount of the Bank's contribution towards his Provident Fund and that amount has instead been transferred to the Pension Fund. The Respondent was entitled to receive the amount of the Bank's contribution towards Provident Fund at the time of his voluntary retirement. The amount being wrongly withheld, we direct that the entire amount must be paid to the Respondent, along with simple interest @ 10% per annum, within six weeks from today.

9. The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, allowed subject to the direction with regard to the payment of the aforesaid amount.

10. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

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