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

2018 Supreme(SC) 2114

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, AMITAVA ROY, JJ.
Bank of Baroda and Another – Appellants
Versus
G. Palani and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5525 of 2012, C.A. Nos. 6254 of 2012, 5611 of 2012, 3026-3253 of 2013, 3257-3262 of 2013, 11205-11340 of 2014, 11342-11435 of 2014, 9533-9649 of 2014, 8357 of 2014, 4711-4800 of 2014, C.A. No. 1880 of 2018 [SLP (C) No. 23773 of 2012], C.A. Nos. 1881-1888 of 2018 [SLP (C) Nos. 20661-20668 of 2012], C.A. No. 1890 of 2018 [SLP (C) No. 24851 of 2012], C.A. Nos. 1892-1912 of 2018 [SLP (C) Nos. 23777-23797 of 2012], C.A. No. 1918 of 2018 [SLP (C) No. 23848 of 2012], C.A. Nos. 1919-2087 of 2018 [SLP (C) Nos. 15640-15808 of 2013, C.A. Nos. 2088-2092 of 2018 [SLP (C) Nos. 31470-31474 of 2012]
Decided On : 13-02-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Rajesh Kumar, Gaurav Kumar Singh, Anant Gautam, Aakash Sehrawat, V. Govinda Ramanan, Soumu Palit, Adarsh B. Dial, Rajiv Nanda, Ananya Datta Majumdar, Sumati Anand, Jagat Arora, Rajat Arora, Anuvrat Sharma, Aayush Agarwala, Pramod B. Agarwala, Shanthakumar Mahale, Rajesh Mahale, Manoj Swarup, Mukul Kumar, Mansi Jain, Rohit Kumar Singh, Romy Chacko, Chandan Kumar Mandal, S.C. Jaidwal, Pulkit, Amith J.
For the Respondents: B.B. Sawhney, Shashank Mishra, Naresh Bakshi, Aparna Jha, S. Rajappa, Sanjay Kapur, Megha Karnwal, Mansi Kapur, Shubhra Kapur, O.P. Gaggar, Aditya Gaggar, Ajit Wagh, M. Khairati, Irshad Ahmad, Naveen R. Nath, Abhimanyu Verma, Lalit Mohini Bhat, Shailesh Madiyal, Sudhanshu Prakash, Mahesh Thakur, Vipasha Singh, E.C. Vidya Sagar, R.S. Hegde, Farhat Johan Rehmani, Chandra Prakash, Prashant Jain, Rajeev Singh

Pension is a vested property right and deferred compensation for past service, not a bounty. Accordingly, statutory pension regulations cannot be overridden by non-statutory executive agreements, and accrued pensionary rights cannot be taken away through retrospective amendments.

Headnote:(A) Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 - Section 19 - Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 - Regulations 2(d), 2(s), 35 and 38 - Calculation of pension - Definition of "Average Emoluments" - Mandate to calculate pension based on pay drawn during the last ten months of service - Retrospective amendment to the definition of "pay" cannot override clear provisions specifying the period for reckoning average emoluments. (Paras 16, 17)

(B) Statutory Regulations vs. Executive Agreements - Regulations framed under statutory authority cannot be supplanted or obliterated by a joint note or executive fiat lacking statutory basis. (Paras 15, 28)

(C) Nature of Pension - Pension is not a bounty or charity but a valuable right, a deferred portion of compensation for past service, and akin to a right of property. (Paras 18-22)

(D) Vested Rights - Accrued rights cannot be taken away with retrospective effect via amendments; such actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Paras 23-24, 27)

Facts of the case:
A dispute arose regarding the calculation of pension for officers who retired or died in service between 1.4.1998 and 31.10.2002. The calculation involved the definition of "average emoluments" and "pay" under the applicable pension regulations. A retrospective amendment was introduced via an explanation to the definition of "pay" to limit the components used for calculation for those who retired on or after 1.4.1998. It was argued that a joint note signed between the employers and the officers' association created an estoppel against claiming pension based on the original formulae.

Findings of Court:
The joint note had no statutory force and could not override the statutory regulations. The retrospective explanation added to the definition of "pay" was in conflict with regulations specifying the period of the preceding ten months for calculating average emoluments. Since pension is a vested property right, it cannot be reduced arbitrarily with retrospective effect.

Issues: Whether a retrospective amendment to the definition of "pay" and a non-statutory joint agreement could override the statutory mandate of calculating pension based on average emoluments drawn during the last ten months of service.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory regulations prevail over executive orders or joint notes. Pension is a deferred salary and a property right; therefore, any retrospective amendment that adversely affects accrued pensionary benefits is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Result: Explanation (c) to Regulation 2(s) struck down; appeals by the banks dismissed and the appeal by the association allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • pension law
    • calculation of pension
      • average emoluments (Para 10, 16, 17)
      • pay definition (Para 9, 10, 16, 33)
    • retrospective amendment
  • administrative law
    • statutory regulations vs executive actions
      • joint note (Para 15, 28, 29)
      • executive instructions (Para 22, 28)
  • constitutional law
    • right to equality
      • discriminatory amendment (Para 33)
    • vested rights

Table of Contents

1. Calculation of pension for bank officers retiring between 1.4.1998 and 31.10.2002 based on average emoluments definition under Pension Regulations, 1995. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 )

2. Banks argued Joint Note binding and retrospective amendment valid; Officers contended accrued pension rights cannot be taken away. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )

3. Pension is a vested right; statutory regulations cannot be overridden by non-statutory agreements or retrospective amendments. (Para 10 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 )

4. Retrospective amendment taking away accrued pension rights under statutory regulations is arbitrary and invalid. (Para 23 , 24 , 29 , 33 )

5. Appeals by banks dismissed; association's appeal allowed with directions to pay arrears with 9% interest. (Para 34 , 35 )

6. Can a retrospective amendment to pension regulations take away rights that have already accrued?

No, such amendment is arbitrary and invalid because it takes away accrued rights without a statutory basis. (Para 23 , 24 , 29 , 33 )

7. Can a non-statutory agreement (Joint Note) override statutory pension regulations?

No, a Joint Note has no statutory force and cannot supplant or override statutory regulations. (Para 15 , 28 , 29 )

8. What is the proper method for calculating average emoluments under the Pension Regulations?

Average of pay drawn during the last ten months preceding retirement, as per Regulation 38. (Para 10 , 16 , 17 )

9. Is pension a bounty or a vested right?

Pension is a valuable right and property, not a bounty, and cannot be arbitrarily taken away. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )

10. Is a temporary discriminatory amendment to pension regulations valid?

No, it is arbitrary and struck down as it creates discrimination and takes away vested rights. (Para 33 )

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. I.A. Nos. 3, 4 & 5 of 2012 for intervention are permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty to avail appropriate remedy. Applications stand dismissed as withdrawn.

3. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

4. In these civil appeals, question arises with respect to the calculation of the pension on the basis of the definition of average emoluments given in Regulation 2(d) read with definition of the pay, as defined in Regulation 2(s) of the Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations of 1995), of the concerned Banks.

5. The dispute is with respect to the employees who retired or died while in service on or after 1.4.1998 and before 31.10.2002. The Banks are governed by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1970”). The regulations have been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 19 of the Act of 1970.

6. We are concerned in the instant cases with the officer’s class of the Banks. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are admittedly not applicable to them.

7. On 29.9.1995, the Board of Directors of the respective nationalized banks, in exercise of their powers under Section 19 of the Act of 1970, in consultation with Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and with prior sanction of Central Government, had notified in Gazette the aforesaid Regulations of 1995.

8. It appears that Indian Banks’ Association was negotiating with the Officers’ Association and a Joint Note had been entered into and was signed on 14.12.1999, with regard to periodical pay revision of the officers of the member Banks. Joint Note indicated the date of effect of scale of pay, dearness allowance and pension, as was agreed to be with effect from 1.4.1998. Thereafter, on 18.1.2003 amendment had been made in the definition of ‘pay’ as defined in Regulation 2(s) of the Regulations of 1995 and explanation thereof was added.

9. The dispute arose after the amendment had been made with respect to pension which would be payable to the Officers who have died or retired after 1.4.1998. Though, the definition of ‘average emoluments’ as defined in Regulation 2(d) of the Regulations of 1995, specified that the average of the pay drawn by the employee during the last ten months of his service in the Bank shall be taken as “Average Emoluments” so as to work out the pension under Regulation 35(2). Regulation 35(2) provided that the basis of the calculation to be 50% of average emoluments, as defined in Regulation 2(d). Regulation 38 of the Regulations 1995 provided the method of determination of the period of ten months for average emoluments. In the case of voluntary retirement/premature retirement, the Bank shall reckon the period of ‘preceding’ ten months for the purpose of average emoluments, from the date on which the employee voluntarily retires or prematurely retires. By virtue of the explanation (c) that was added in Regulation 2(s) of the Regulations of 1995, it was provided that the pay shall be taken to mean the pay and emoluments that had been drawn before 1.4.1998 for the category of the officers, who have retired or died on or after 1.4.1998. The provisions contained in Regulations 2(d), 2(s)(c), 35, 37 and 38,are extracted hereunder:

“Regulation 2(d):

2. (d) “Average Emoluments” means the average of the pay drawn by an employee during the last ten months of his service in the Bank.”

“Regulation 2(s)(c):

“2(s) “Pay” includes:

(a)........

(b)........

(c) in relation to an employee who retired or died while in service on or after the 1st day of April, 1998:

(i) the basic pay including stagnation increments, if any.

(ii) all other components of pay counted for the purpose of making contribution to the Provident Fund and for the payment of dearness allowance.

(iii) increment component of Fixed Personal Allowance.

(iv) dearness allowance thereon on the above calculated up to Index Number

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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