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

2025 Supreme(Bom) 899

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
Usha Ravi - Petitioner
Versus
Bank of Baroda, through its Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, Mumbai - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 7034, 8680 of 2024, Writ Petition Nos. 13399, 13400 of 2023
Decided On : 25-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
Mr.Suresh Pakale, Senior Advocate with Mr.Nilesh Desai i/b.
Ms.Padmaja Malgaonkar for the Petitioners in all Petitions.
Mr.Ashok D. Shetty with Ms.Rita K.Joshi and Mr.Rahul P. Shetty
and Mr.Shashikant Patil for the Respondent -Union Bank of India
and for Respondent No. 1 in WP Nos. 13400 of 2023, 13399 of
2023 and 8680 of 2024.
Mr.Lancy D’souza with Ms.Deepika Agarwal i/b.Mr.V.M.Parkar for
Respondent No.1in WP Nos. 7034 of 2024 and for Respondent No.2
in WP No. 13399 of 2023.
Mr.Chetan Akerkar for Respondent No.2 in WP No. 7034 of 2024.
Ms.Priyanka Chavan for Respondent No.3-Union of India in all
Petitions.
Mr.Shrihari Saranathan for Respondent No.2 in WP No. 8680 of
2024.

Pension calculations for deputationists must exclude deputation allowances, relying solely on average emoluments from the parent bank as per applicable regulations.

Headnote:

(A) Pension Regulations - Union Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 - Clause 25 - Calculation of pension and retirement benefits - The court addressed whether the deputation allowance received by employees during their deputation could be included in the calculation of pension. The petitioners contended that since they received a 15% deputation allowance and contributions were made to the provident fund based on this allowance, it should be considered for pension calculation. The court found that the pension regulations clearly state that the average emoluments for pension calculation must be based on the pay drawn in the parent bank, excluding the deputation allowance. (Paras 9, 10, 18, 22, 26)

(B) Employment on Deputation - The court ruled that employees on deputation do not acquire a right to enhanced pension based on the higher pay received during deputation, as their service remains connected to the parent bank. The court emphasized that the nature of deputation does not equate to promotion or elevation in rank. (Paras 19, 24, 32)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were employees on deputation to various banks, receiving a 15% allowance. They sought to include this allowance in their pension calculations upon superannuation.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the pension must be calculated based on the average emoluments from the parent bank, excluding the deputation allowance.

Issues: The main issues were whether the deputation allowance could be included in pension calculations and the implications of being on deputation for pension rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the pension regulations do not permit the inclusion of deputation allowances in pension calculations, reaffirming that the average emoluments must reflect the pay from the parent bank.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The question posed in all these cases is, whether the deputation allowance drawn by an Employee, at the time of his superannuation, could be reckoned with for the purpose of calculating the pension and retirement benefits?

3. The common factor in all these cases is that each of these Petitioners was on deputation with a particular bank (commonly referred to as the ‘Loanee Bank’) until their dates of superannuation. It is the contention of the Petitioners that as they received 15% extra salary on account of being on deputation with the Loanee Bank and as P.F. contributions were deducted on such deputation allowance, the pension should be fixed on the basis of the additional emoluments, since portion of the provident fund deduction was deposited by the Parent Bank (also known as the ‘Lending Bank’) in the pension account of each Petitioner.

4. In each case, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance had published an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Central Vigilance Officer (CVO) in Public Sector Banks, Financial Institutions, Insurance Companies, etc. Each of them had applied to the Government seeking deputation and it was under the orders of the Central Government that they were sent on deputation until their dates of superannuation. Each one of them was officiating as a CVO and their deputations were extended on request till their dates of superannuation.

5. Since the entire case turns upon the interpretation of the service rules, we are not adverting to the specific dates on which they were sent on deputation and the dates of their superannuation, as the main issue does not turn upon these details.

6. To appreciate the circumstances resulting in these Petitioners proceeding on deputation, we are referring to the similar orders passed by the Under Secretary (Vigilance), Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services Vigilance Section, Government of India, vide which, the Parent Bank in each of these cases was informed that, it was decided in consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission to appoint the particular Petitioner, who was working as General Manager with the Parent Bank, as the Chief Vigilance Officer with the Respondent No.2/Bank. It is in identical circumstances that these Petitioners were deputed with the Loanee Bank as CVO and each of such Loanee Banks was informed in writing about such deputation.

7. The identical communications by the Under Secretary Vigilance to each of these Petitioners, the Loanee Banks and the Parent Banks, indicated certain conditions. For reference purpose, we are reproducing the conditions made applicable to one of the Petitioners, as under :-

“2(i) She will be treated as on deputation to IDBI Bank, Mumbai for a period of 3 years or till she attains the age of superannuation in her parent bank, whichever is earlier. Her terms may be extended / reduced, if necessary, only with prior concurrence of Department of Financial Services and Central Vigilance Commission.

2(ii) Her pay scale & prerequisites during her tenure as CVO will be equivalent to that of WTD (DMD) of the IDBI Bank. However, she will have the option to draw her pay scale in parent bank plus 15% deputation allowance of her basic pay thereon and prerequisites of lending organisation.

2(iii) During the period of deputation, the contribution towards Leave Salary and Contributory Provident Fund will be borne by the borrowing organisation.

2(iv) The borrowing organization will meet the expenditure on the TA & DA as per rules applicable to its officers.

3. The officer is requested to send a report of taking over charge as the CVO to his Department and Central Vigilance Commission along with the particulars in the enclosed proforma.

4. MD & CEO of the lending Bank is being requested to relieve the officer to enable joining the new assignment in IDBI Bank, Mumbai.”

8. All the Petitioners commu

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