Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.P. Shah, J.
Madhav K. Kirtikar..... Petitioner.
Versus
Bank of India ..... Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 620 of 1996, decided on 7-1-1997.
Advocates appeared :
Ajit Kapadia with Aditya Chitale, for petitioner.
C.U. Singh i/b Haresh Mehta Co., for respondent.
Held. That the employees of the Bank were governed by the Bank of India (Officers Service) Regulations. 1979 in which it was provided that an officer employee retiring voluntarily would be entitled to all benefits under the normal retirement as per the Regulations. Pension is not a charity or bounty nor is it gratuitous payment solely dependent on the whim or sweet will of the employer. When a new scheme is introduced a choice of cut-off date may be permissible subject to the scrutiny by the Court in order to ascertain whether the choice of the date can be supported on the touchstone of Article 14. The Bank had chosen to apply the scheme to employees who had retired after 1.1. 1986 and the benefit of the scheme had to be given to all the employees who had retired after I. I. 1986. It would be totally impermissible to make artificially a further classification amongst the employees who retired after 1.1.1986 as it would be totally irrational, arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The Bank cannot make a differentiation amongst the employees who retired under the voluntary retirement scheme and employees who retired otherwise because the term "retirement" which occurs in the Regulations includes voluntary retirement. Regulations framed by the Bank are for giving pensionary benefits to all employees of the bank either retiring on attiring the age of superannuation or retiring under the scheme of voluntary retirement. The petitioner was entitled for the pensionary benefits in accordance With the pension scheme framed by the Bank of India.
Article 14-See Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995, Clauses 29 and 34.
(i) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of pension in accordance with the pension scheme framed by the Bank of India;
(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus to strike down that part of the scheme which denies pensionary benefits to the employees who had retired voluntarily from service during the period 1st August, 1986 to 31st October, 1993, and
(iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to forthwith extend the pensionary benefits to the petitioner.
2.The facts of the case are simple and may be shortly stated. In or about 1946 the petitioner joined the respondent-Bank of India which was then a limited company. He retired from the service on 1st August, 1987. Many developments had taken place in the intervening period. What was till then a private Bank, became a nationalised Bank under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 ("Act" for short). The petitioner had put in 41 years of service with the respondent when he opted for voluntary retirement from the services of the respondent in the year 1987. The petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement in accordance with the rules contained in the Bank of India Officers' Service Regulations, 1979 ("Regulations" for short). The rules regarding voluntary retirement for officer employees, inter alia, provide that an officer employee retiring voluntarily shall be entitled to all the benefits under the normal retirement, as per the service regulations.
3.Originally employees of the respondent-Bank were not entitled to pension. But there was a scheme for payment of provident fund and gratuity under the rules. When there was a demand from the Bank employees for grant of pension to them, after discussions with the union, the Bank proposed to introduce the pension scheme for all the employees and certain proposals were put forth while introducing the pension scheme for the officers. It seems that the draft scheme was circulated amongst the employees-both in service as well as retired. The Bank also called for options to be exercised from the officer employees who had retired between 1st August, 1986 to 31st October, 1993. It seems that the Bank wrote to the petitioner expecting his option for pension scheme and also directed him to undergo medical examination at his costs from the Bank's approved doctors for the purposes of commutation of pension. The petitioner vide his letter dated 22nd July, 1994 exercised his option to join the pension scheme. He also exercised his option to commute one-third of the pension. He also got himself medically examined by the respondent's doctor.
4.On 29th September, 1995 the Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 ("Regulations of 1995" for short) were brought into force. The Regulations were framed by the board of the respondent-Bank in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Act after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and the previous sanction of the Central Government. By the Regulations of 1995 the pension scheme is made applicable to all the employees who have retired during the period 1st January, 1986 to 31st October, 1993. Under the old Regulations the employee had a right to retire voluntarily after completing 30 years of service. However, by the Regulations of 1995 the employee is given right to retire after 20 years' service under Regulation 29 and it is provided that such a retired employee shall be eligible for pension.
5.By letter dated 3rd February, 1996 the respondent Bank wrote to the petitioner that the Indian Banks' Association had clarified to the respondent that employees who had voluntarily retired during the period 1st January, 1986 to 31st October, 1993 would not be eligible for pension and voluntary retirement. The petitioner was informed that as he had sought
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
