The denial of pensionary benefits based on Regulation 18 was legally incorrect as the Regulations were prospective in nature, and the petitioners were entitled to the grant of pensionary benefits.

JUDGMENT - V.G. PALSHIKAR, J.:---Both these petitions raise identical questions of law for adjudication and, therefore, are disposed of by this common order. All the three petitioners in these two petitions are employees of the Reserve Bank of India and have resigned from their service after rendering service of more than twenty years. After resignation, they have claimed pensionary benefits which were rejected by the Reserve Bank of India by passing appropriate orders. This rejection is questioned in both these petitions.

2. In Writ Petition No. 615 of 1996 the petitioners have claimed a declaration that Regulation 18 of Pension Regulation, 1990 be declared unconstitutional as it is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory whereas the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2586 of 97 has claimed that Regulation 26(3-A) of the Reserve Bank of India Staff Regulations, 1948 is not prospective in nature and, therefore, petitioner is entitled to grant of benefit of pension as his resignation is equivalent to voluntary retirement. The petitioners have, therefore, challenged by these petitions the rejection of their claim for pensionary benefits.

3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2586 of 1987 made two representations for grant of pensionary benefits. The first was made immediately after he resigned on 5-6-1990 and in response to his another representation dated 12-11-1990, it was informed to him by the respondent bank that his request cannot be acceded in view of the provisions of Regulation 18 of the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990. It is this communication dated 15th December, 1990 which is also impugned in Writ Petition No. 2586 of 1997. After amendment to the Staff Regulations of 1948 and introduction of Regulation 26(3-A), the petitioner again made representation dated 25th April, 1991 for grant of pensionary benefits claiming that his resignation be treated as equal to voluntary retirement. This representation was also rejected on the ground that Regulation 26(3-A) is made applicable from 2-6-1992 and the petitioner having resigned prior to that date, he is not entitled to the relief as claimed. This representation was also rejected.

4. In Writ Petition No. 615 of 96 the petitioners have challenged the Constitutional validity of Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1990 on the ground that it is arbitrary. It is these challenges and claim for pensionary benefits which we have to consider in this petition.

5. The Reserve Bank of India has opposed the prayers contending that their Regulations are legal, valid and there is no room for any interpretation or grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioners-the-cut-off date being the date on which the amendment was introduced to Regulations of 1948. Learned Counsel for the Bank has relied upon several judgments of the Supreme Court to substantiate that the cut-off date for voluntary retirement is proper. It is not in dispute that the resignations of all the petitioners are prior to both the Regulations.

6. Certain facts which are not in dispute, are liable to be noted for adjudication of these petitions. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 615 of 1996 stood relieved on their resignation from 1-5-1998. At the time when the petitioners had resigned the R.B.I. Service Regulations of 1990 had not come into existence. Earlier, the service conditions of the R.B.I. employees were governed by the Staff Regulations, 1948. Regulation 26 was not amended till the petitioners were in service to include sub-regulation (3-A) and, therefore, there was no provision for voluntary retirement from service in existence in 1990. It was in these circumstances that the petitioners resigned the services on completion of more than 20 years of service.

7. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2586 of 97 stood relieved on resignation from 5-6-1990 and, therefore, the position in respect of the regulations, as narrated in the foregoing paragraph, applies mutatis mutandis to this petitioner als

Click Here to Read the rest of this document