IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Dipankar Datta, M.S. Karnik, JJ.
All India IDBI Officers Association - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2833 Of 2012 with Notice Of Motion No. 99 Of 2014 with Writ Petition No. 214 Of 2016 with Writ Petition No. 12607 Of 2015
Decided On : 20-09-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of parties and subjects of the writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details on the requests and claims made by the petitioners. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. objections raised by idbi ltd. regarding maintainability. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. arguments on functional, administrative, and financial controls. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. judicial precedents and their implications on questions of public interest. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. legal reasoning surrounding the analysis of idbi ltd.'s categorization. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. final legal reasoning on claims and conclusions. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 8. examination of whether writs against idbi ltd. are maintainable. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 9. final decisions on maintainability of all writ petitions. (Para 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
[Per the Chief Justice] :
INTRODUCTORY NARRATIVE
1. These 3 (three) writ petitions are at the instance of the All India IDBI Officers Association (hereafter “Association”, for short), the I.D.B.I. Officers Organization (hereafter “Organization”, for short) and 4 (four) former employees (hereafter “petitioning employees”, for brevity) of the Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. (hereafter “IDBI Ltd”, for short). The common and the principal contesting respondent in all these writ petitions is IDBI Ltd.
2. Arraying the Union of India, IDBI Ltd. and the Chairman of the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (hereafter “PFRDA”, for short) as the 3 (three) respondents in that order, the Association in its writ petition dated 6th August 2012 has prayed that (a) the impugned circular dated 18th April 2012 (hereafter “impugned circular”, for short) be quashed upon declaring the same to be illegal and unconstitutional; (b) the respondents be directed to withdraw, cancel and/or rescind the impugned circular; (c) the respondents be directed to extend one more opportunity to opt for pension under IDBI Defined Benefit Pension Scheme to the officers who did not/or could not exercise an option earlier to opt for such scheme; and (d) the resolutions under which the PFRDA is functioning be declared as ultra vires the Constitution and the same may, accordingly, be set aside and quashed.
3. The impugned circular, referred to in prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the writ petition, purportedly notified a New Pension Scheme (hereafter “NPS”, for short). The said circular reads as follows:
Heads of Verticals, Departments,
CGM, Zonal PBG Offices,
Regional and Branch Heads,
JNIBF Staff College,
IDBI Bank Ltd.
Dear Sir/Madam
IDBI Bank Ltd. New Pension Scheme (IBLNPS)
The Board of Directors of the Bank at its meeting held on March 20, 2008, approved the proposal envisaging that the new recruits joining the service of the Bank on or after April 01, 2008, excluding those who have been already been issued Offer Letters and who were in the process of joining, shall not be placed under the existing IDBI Pension Scheme and would be offered ‘Defined Contribution Pension Scheme’ (DCPS), also referred as New/National Pension Scheme (NPS), to be drawn up by the Bank in due course.
The Board of Directors in its meeting held on October 20, 2011 has approved the ‘IDBI Bank Ltd New Pension Scheme (IBLNPS) Rules, 2011’. In light of the scope of the product offered by PFRDA, these Rules are further amended in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on March 28, 2012. The salient features of the Scheme, operational guidelines and the process flow have been provided in the Annexure I, Annexure II, and Annexure III respectively.
In the case of employees covered under IBLNPS, presently 10% of the pay Eligible for PF is being recovered and temporarily credited in their Provident Fund (Employees’ contribution) account. The Bank has also provided for its contribution as per the scheme.
From April 2012, recovery from salary will be made as per the provisions of the IBLNPS [i.e. 10% of (Basic pay + DA)]. The arrears for the period from Apr
Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. vs. Mysore Paper Mills Officers’ Association
Andrew Yule Head Office Retired Employees' Association vs. Union of India
Sukhdev Singh vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India
Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi
Som Prakash Rekhi vs. Union of India
Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology
Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. vs. A. Nageshwara Rao
Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. Union of India
Balmer Lawrie & Company Limited vs. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy
T.N. Rugmani vs. C. Achutha Menon
K.S. Ramamurthy Reddiar vs. Chief Commissioner, Pondicherry
R. V. Dyansagar v. Maharashtra Industrial & Technical Consultancy Organisation
Asulal Loya vs. Union of India & Anr.
Jatya Pal Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 6 SCC 452
Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P.
Bharat Singh vs. State of Haryana
G. Bassi Reddy vs. International Crops Research Institute
Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B.
Praga Tools Corpn. vs. C.A. Imanual
Andi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.S.J.M.S. Trust vs. V.R. Rudani
VST Industries Ltd. vs. Workers’ Union, [(2001) 1 SCC 298] and Sohan Lal vs. Union of India
U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey
Virendra Kumar Srivastava vs. U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam
Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly
The court determined that cooperative banks do not qualify as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, thus are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
A multinational company cannot be classified as an 'instrumentality of the State' under Article 12 without pervasive control or public duty imposed by the State.
Writs cannot be issued against private entities as they do not perform public duties, reaffirming the limits of Article 12 applicability.
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.