SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, M.R. SHAH, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
Assistant General Manager And Others – Appellant
Versus
Radhey Shyam Pandey – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2463 of 2015, 2287-2288 of 2010, 5035-5037 of 2012, 10813 of 2013
Decided On : 02-03-2020
(a) Service law - SBI VRS 2000 - Pension - Rule 23, Pension rules - VRS an independent contract, not statutory provision - Making employee eligible for pension on completion of 15 years and a particular age - Expression "pension as per rules” only for purpose of working out proportionate pension - Pension for VRS would be pro-rata pension on completion of 15 years. (Para 21, 33, 37, 39, 54, 56)
(b) Service law - SBI VRS 2000 - VRS floated as proposed by IBA and sanctioned by Central Government - Not open to SBI to modify/amend without prior approval of Central Government. (Para 42)
(c) Service law - SBI VRS 2000 - Once SBI accepted and adopted VRS floated by IBA it ought to amend its Pension Rules accordingly as done by other Banks - Not doing so - Not a ground to deny benefits of the scheme to the employees. (Para 49, 53, 63)
(d) Indian Contract Act - Section 19 - Bank cannot be permitted to make a representation and later on wriggle out of its obligation - Making a "misrepresentation" not permissible - Consent obtained by coercion, fraud, or 'misrepresentation' - Agreement voidable at the option of the aggrieved party - Inequality of bargaining power merit intervention of court. (Para 50)
(e) Service law - Contract of employment - Period of contract is to be reasonable - Employee has a right to know conditions of work and he is properly protected against redundancy - Employer, instrumentality of State, cannot negate just, fair, and reasonable procedure - Articles 12, 14 and 21, Constitution of India would be violated. (Para 52)
(f) Interpretation - Contract - SBI VRS 2000 - The contract when read as a whole it becomes apparent that optees will be eligible for proportionate pension under the Pension Regulations of the bank - Lack of clarity, if any, attributable to bank only - Maxim verba chartarum fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem - The bank responsible for formulation of terms in contractual Scheme, bear the risk of lack of clarity. (Para 57, 60)
(g) Indian Contract Act - Section 23 - Does not apply to SBI VRS. (Para 62)
(h) Service law - Pension - Banking service - Pension cannot be denied in an unfair manner. (Para 63)
Facts of the case:
The question involved is whether the respondent-employees are entitled to pension on completion of 15 years of service as per the State Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The employees who completed 15 years of service or more as on cut-off date were entitled to proportionate pension under SBI VRS to be computed as per SBI Pension Fund Rules.
Result: Appeals disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. The question involved is whether the respondent-employees are entitled to pension on completion of 15 years of service as per the State Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short, "the VRS framed in 2000").
2. The matter has been referred to larger Bench due to conflict of opinion between the Judges as to the admissibility of pension under the VRS.
3. After obtaining approval of the Government of India, the Indian Bank Association (IBA) evolved a Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The Central Board of Directors of the State Bank of India (in short 'the SBI') adopted and approved the scheme in its meeting held on 27.12.2000 for implementing the VRS for the employees of the bank by retiring them on completion of 15 years of service with the benefit provided in the scheme. The scheme had been drawn up, keeping in view the guidelines issued by the IBA. "Memorandum" dated 26.12.2000 was submitted by the Deputy Managing Director and the Corporate Development Officer for according approval to the proposals contained in the Memorandum as also for adopting the scheme as Annexure 'B' to the Memorandum.
4. The basis of Memorandum dated 26.12.2000, was the advice by IBA vide letter dated 31.8.2000 in which it was pointed out that they deliberated with the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Banking Division), at its meeting with the Finance Minister, with Chief Executives of public sector banks on 13.6.2000. The human resource and manpower planning in public sector banks were reviewed, and a Committee was constituted to examine the issues concerned to public sector banks and to suggest suitable remedial measures. The Committee considered the economic reforms set in motion in the year 1990, the high establishment cost and low productivity in public sector banks. It was felt that the banks convert their human resource into assets compatible with the business strategies through a variety of measures. The data available indicated that 43% of the employees in public sector banks were in the 46 + age group, and only 12% were in the 25-35 age group. It was felt that this pattern has severe implications for the banks regarding mobility, training, development of skills, and succession plans for higher-level positions. The workforce was in excess. In order to remedy the situation, the Committee placed before the Government two schemes, viz., Sabbatical Leave, and a Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The IBA vide letter dated 13.7.2000 sought no objection from the Government for circulating the schemes to the banks for consideration and adoption by their Boards. The Government conveyed on 29.8.2000 that it did not have any objection for adopting and implementing the scheme by the respective Board of Directors. It advised that the banks may adopt these schemes for sabbatical leave and voluntary retirement based on the essential features of the schemes given in the annexure to the letter. The scheme provided eligibility for all permanent employees with 15 years of service. It provided for amount of ex gratia and other benefits accepted by the Government of India which were to be provided (i) gratuity as per the Gratuity Act/service gratuity, as the case may be; (ii) pension (including commuted value of pension)/bank's contribution towards provident fund; and (iii) leave encashment as per rules.
5. After the Central Board of SBI approved the proposals contained in the memorandum on 27.12.2000, a circular was issued on 29.12.2000 in which it was mentioned that the IBA advised that as the Committee constituted by the Finance Ministry recommended introduction of a VRS in order to rationalise the manpower, the Government of India has no objection for adopting and implementing the VRS. It was clearly stated in the Circular dated 29.12.2000 that the Central Board of Directors accorded approval for adopting and implementing the
Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar
HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd.
Jan Mohd. Noor Mohd. Bagban v. State of Gujarat
Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly
Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress
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.