SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
The Reserve Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
M.T. Mani and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13962 of 2024
Decided On : 23-05-2025
JUDGMENT :
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. In this Appeal, challenge has been raised by the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) to the Division Bench Judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 18.12.2023 whereby the appeal preferred by Respondent No.1 against the Judgment of a Single Judge dismissing his Writ Petition for grant of pension with effect from the date of his retirement i.e. 01.12.2014, stood dismissed after he exercised his option as per the RBI Regulations/Circular dated 14.09.2020.
2. The facts are not in dispute and therefore are being referred at the very outset.
3. The employees of the RBI prior to 1990 were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund (“CPF”) and the payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972 (“Gratuity Act”). For the first time, on 29.10.1990, the RBI with approval from its Central Board of Directors introduced the RBI Pension Regulations, 1990. Employees were informed vide Administration Circular No. 6 to the effect that the said regulations would come into effect from 01.11.1990 giving an option to the existing employees to join the said Pension Scheme or to continue with the RBI’s CPF. All new employees who joined on or after 01.11.1990 were to be governed by the 1990 Regulations. It also provided that the employees in service as on 01.01.1986 who retired before 01.11.1990 were also eligible for pension upon refunding the amount of CPF share of the RBI with accrued interest as received by them on their retirement, along with simple interest thereon at the rate of 6%. According to Regulation 31 thereof, employees retiring between 01.01.1986 and 31.10.1990, although eligible to join the Pension Scheme, would receive the pension only from 01.11.1990 onwards, with no arrears for the period before the said date. On 07.02.1992 RBI issued another Administration Circular No. 5 amending the Pension Regulations, 1990 effective from 06.02.1992. Existing employees (excluding those on leave preparatory to retirement) were given a fresh option to switch to the Pension Regulations. Here again, no retrospective pensionary benefits were granted.
4. On 14.10.1995, Administration Circular No. 4 providing for another opportunity for existing employees as on 01.11.1992 excluding those on Leave Preparatory retirement to opt for the Pension Regulations. On this occasion, the refund of the CPF contribution made by the RBI and accrued interest was to be effected with 12% simple interest. It was clarified that it was not applicable to employees who had retired before 01.11.1992 making it prospective.
5. Three attempts made by the RBI to give another option to its employees to switch over from CPF to the Pension Scheme did not find favour with the Government of India on 04.02.2002, 26.02.2018 and 05.03.2019. On 14.09.2020, another Administration Circular No. 1 was issued, which allowed existing CPF optees and former employees who were in service on or after 01.11.1997 and retired with CPF to opt for Pension Regulations. This was obviously, subject to the refund of the CPF plus accrued interest amount pertaining to the RBI’s share with 12% simple interest. It is apparent that this Circular was not applicable to employees who had retired before 01.11.1997. A detailed memorandum of procedure for option to be exercised was issued by the RBI on 20.09.2000.
6. Respondent No. 1 joined service of the RBI on 14.09.1981 and became a member of the CPF Scheme in operation then for the staff. During his entire service tenure, until he retired as Manager on 30.11.2014, Respondent No.1 got four options to switch over to the Pension Scheme, starting from 01.11.1990 till 14.09.2000. He chose not to join the Pension Scheme rather continued with the CPF. As a matter of fact, on retirement, he was paid the entire dues of CPF and Gratuity.
7. It appears that Respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam on 14.02.2020, after the Government of India rejected the proposal of RBI for another option for CPF optees to switch to the
Mohammad Ali Imam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others
State of Tripura and Others Vs. Anjana Bhattacharjee and Others
Hirandra Kumar Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Another
Differentiation in pension benefits based on financial constraints is constitutionally valid, affirming the balance between fiscal policy and equality in treatment under law.
Fixing of a cut-off date for granting of benefits is well within the powers of Government as long as the reasons therefor are not arbitrary and are based on some rational consideration.
Cutoff date for pension upon switch from provident fund, denying pre-cutoff arrears, is not arbitrary or discriminatory due to prior opt-out opportunities, financial burden, and scheme as policy pack....
An amendment with retrospective operation that takes away a benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule violates the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constituti....
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.