Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 268
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
Shrinath Upadhyay - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12921 of 2019
Decided On : 05-10-2020
Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate, Satyavrat Verma, Advocate, Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Advocate
Compulsory retirement is not a form of dismissal or termination of service and therefore does not entail forfeiture of service or disqualification for pension under Regulation 20 of the Pension Regulations 2018.
Headnote:
PENSION - COMPULSORY RETIREMENT - PENSION SCHEME - EMPLOYEES OF REGIONAL RURAL BANKS - PENSION REGULATIONS 2018 - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY - ENTITLEMENT - LEAVE ENCASHMENT - PRIVILEGE LEAVE - PAYMENT - INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the erstwhile Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank, was compulsorily retired from service in 2018. He was denied pension and leave encashment benefits under the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 2018 and Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service (Amendment) Regulation 2018, citing Regulation 20 and 31 of the Regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to pension and leave encashment benefits under the Pension Regulations 2018. It interpreted the relevant provisions of the Regulations and found that Regulation 20, which provides for forfeiture of service and consequent disqualification for pension, does not apply to cases of compulsory retirement. It also found that Regulation 31, which provides for compulsory retirement pension, is not applicable to the petitioner as he was compulsorily retired prior to the effective date of the Regulations.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pension under the Pension Regulations 2018 despite being compulsorily retired from service? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to leave encashment benefits under the Pension Regulations 2018?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Regulation 20 of the Pension Regulations 2018 and held that it does not apply to cases of compulsory retirement. It reasoned that the Regulation provides for forfeiture of service and consequent disqualification for pension, but compulsory retirement is not a form of dismissal or termination of service. 2. The Court interpreted Regulation 31 of the Pension Regulations 2018 and held that it is not applicable to the petitioner as he was compulsorily retired prior to the effective date of the Regulations.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent bank to consider the petitioner's case for pension option and privilege leave encashment in accordance with the Pension Regulations 2018. It also directed the bank to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the leave encashment amount from the date three months after the order of compulsory retirement was passed till the date of payment.
JUDGMENT
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. - The petitioner in the present case is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the communication as contained in letter reference no. DBGB/HO/HRD- Pension/3998 dated 30.05.2019 issued under seal and signature of the Chief Manager of Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank whereby he has informed the petitioner that because of the punishment of compulsory retirement from service (CRS) awarded to him on 16.01.2018, he would not qualify for pension under Regulation 20 and Regulation 31 of the Banks (Employees) Pension Regulation dated 12.12.2018. The petitioner has prayed that after quashing of this communication dated 30.05.2019 (Annexure ''7/1'') this Court may issue a direction to the respondent Bank for accepting the employers'' contribution of provident fund in the Banks Pension Trust account as per Regulation 3(C) of the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation 2018 and Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service (Amendment) Regulation 2018 and there upon the respondent Bank be directed to make payment of pension along with 18 % interest from the date of retirement till date of actual payment.
2. The another prayer of the petitioner is to issue a direction to the respondent Banks to pay the leave encashment amount to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 18 % per annum from the date of retirement till date of actual payment. Several other directions and declarations have been prayed for in the writ application but in course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submissions to claim the benefits as mentioned above.
Brief Facts of the case & Submissions of the Petitioner
3. The petitioner joined the service of the erstwhile Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank as a clerk-cum-cashier on 09.06.1979. The said Bank was amalgamated with Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank on 10.02.2006 and again it has been amalgamated with Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank on 01.01.2019. It is a Regional Rural Bank constituted under the provision of the Regional Rural Bank Act 1976.
4. The petitioner later on came to be posted on the upgraded post as an officer in the junior management (Grade- I). He was then promoted from Scale-I Officer to Scale-II but after completing more than 38 years of his service, he was made to compulsorily retire from service on 20.01.2018 while working on the post of Manager, Murlidwari Branch in the District of Nawada. It is his case that without serving any show cause notice he was directly served with charges dated 08.05.2017 with regard to the matter when he was posted as manager at Nauhatta and Balia Branch in the District of Rohtas during the year 2014-2015 and 2009-2012 respectively.
5. It is the submission of the petitioner that the punishment of compulsory retirement was awarded to him but without any remarks as to forfeiture of any retiral benefits. After his retirement he got his retiral dues such as gratuity and provident fund with employers'' contribution as also the group saving linked insurance amount but has not been paid his leave encashment. At the relevant time of his retirement he was covered by the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 under Employees'' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act of 1995'')
6. It is stated that vide Memorandum of Settlement dated 29.10.1993 between the management of 58 Banks as represented by Indian Bank Association on the one hand and their workmen represented by the All-India Bank Employees Association on the other hand the sponsor Bank (Nationalised Commercial Bank) employees were covered under Nationalised Commercial Banks Employees Pension Schemes 1995 and after the settlement dated 29.10.1993 the sponsor Bank i.e. Punjab National Bank circulated a Regulation with regard to pension of the employees known as Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995.
7. It is in the aforesaid background that All-India Regional Rural Bank Employees Association filed a w
