Back
2002 Supreme(Kar) 649
Karnataka High Court
Trikannad R.S. - Appellant
Versus
Vijaya Bank - Respondent
Decided On : 10-21-02
W.P. : 21691 of 2000
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an employee to pension benefits based on subsequent regulations and negotiations, even after retirement.
Headnote:
PENSION - Employee Retirement - Regulation 3(1) - Vijaya Bank Officers' Service regulations, 1982 - Central Civil Services Rules - Canara Bank, Head office, J. C. Road, Bangalore v. B. M. Ramachandra and Others 1999 (4) Kar. L. J. 628 - Bank of India v. Indu Rajagopalan and Others 2000- i-LLJ-1617 (SC) - Effective Date of Retirement - Full Bench of the CAT in 449 of 1997
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash an order denying pension benefits after retirement. The petitioner retired in 1985 and claimed entitlement to pension based on subsequent regulations and negotiations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner satisfied the conditions for pension under Regulation 3(1)(a) and was entitled to pension benefits. The court distinguished a Supreme Court judgment cited by the respondents, ruling in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's entitlement to pension benefits after retirement in 1985 based on subsequent regulations and negotiations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner satisfied the conditions for pension under Regulation 3(1)(a) and was entitled to pension benefits. The court also distinguished a Supreme Court judgment cited by the respondents, ruling in favor of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The impugned order denying pension benefits was set aside, and the petitioner was granted pension in accordance with the pension regulation. The respondents were directed to pay pension based on the petitioner's retirement date. No costs were awarded.
( 1 ) PETITIONER is before me seeking for a writ, of certiorari to quash an order dated 14/02/2000 with a further direction to pay to the petitioner pension and other benefits like payment of commutation etc. , with effect from 1/11/1993 together with interest.
( 2 ) PETITIONER joined the services of the bank in the year 1944. The service condition of the petitioner was covered by Regulation 19 of the Vijaya Bank Officers' Service regulations, 1982. They came into force from 1/01/1983. The age of retirement of an officer of the Bank is as determined by the board in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time. The government of India issued guidelines under which the age of retirement shall be 60 years of age for those officers who were recruited or promoted prior to 19/07/1969. The order of the Bank is filed at Annexure-A. Petitioner retired on 31/12/1985. Petitioner refers to the discussions between the workmen and officers of the industry with regard to introduction of pension as a retiral benefit for the Bank employees. Petitioner also refers to negotiations in the matter of service conditions between IBA and the trade unions. A memorandum of settlement came to be signed on 29/10/1993. According to the petitioner, an option is available in the matter of pension. Petitioner's option was rejected on the ground that he retired on 31/12/1985 and the pension is available to those who are in service on or after 1/01/1986. Petitioner in this petition is challenging the denial of benefits to him.
( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance and they justified their stand. Their essential contention is that the petitioner retired from service on 31/12/1985 and he is not entitled for pension. They rely on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of india and Others v. Dr. Vijayapurapu subbayamma AIR 2000 SC 3113 : 2000 (7) scc 662.
( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsels for the parties, I have carefully perused the material on record.
( 5 ) PETITIONER challenges the endorsement, annexure-E, issued by the respondent. Respondent states that in terms of Regulation 3 (1), pension regulations are applicable to only those employees who were in service of the bank on or after 1/01/1986. It further states that the option is to be in writing. They rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner retired on 31/12/1985. Regulation 3 (1) reads as under:"3. Application.- These regulations shall apply to employees who, - (1 ) (a) were in the service of the Bank on or after the 1st day of January, 1986 but had retired before the 1st day of November, 1993; (b) exercise an option in writing within one hundred and twenty days from the notified date to become member of the fund; and (c) refund within sixty days after the expiry of the said period of one hundred and twenty days specified in clause (b) the entire amount of the Bank s contribution to the provident Fund including interest accrued thereon together with a further simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the said amount from the date of settlement of the Provident Fund account till the date of refund of the aforesaid amount to the Bank".
( 6 ) NOW we are concerned only with regulation 3 (1 ) (a ). It imposes two conditions: (1) an employee is to be in service on or after 1/01/1986; and (2) he had to be retired before the first day of November, 1993. Petitioner has satisfied the second condition. Let me see as to whether he satisfies the first condition. In this regard it is pertinent to refer to Annexure-A. Annexure-A reads as under:"this is to inform you that you are attaining the age of retirement on December 13, 1985. You will however stand retired from the service of the Bank on 31/12/1985 (Tuesday) as per the rules, and be relieved after the close of office hours. Further, you are required to close all the loans availed by you, if any, from the Bank on or before the said date. In case you desire
