IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.
Shri Chinmoy Pathak – Plaintiff
Versus
Standard Chartered Bank Limited – Defendant
G.A. No. 734 of 2008 & C.S. No. 198 of 2006
Decided On : July 2, 2008
CIVIL PROCEDURE - REJECTION OF PLAINT - CAUSE OF ACTION - PENSION SCHEME - NO PROVISION FOR REVISION OF PENSION - PENSIONERS NOT ENTITLED TO SEEK DECLARATION FOR PERIODICAL REVISION OF PENSION - PLAINT DISCLOSED NO CAUSE OF ACTION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, General Secretary of ANZ Grindlays Bank Retired Management Staff Pensioners’ Association, filed a suit seeking a declaration that he and the members of his association were entitled to a periodical review of the rate of pension payable to them, on the basis of rise or fall of the price index. The plaintiff contended that though the pension scheme and the rules did not provide for any revision of the pension payable to them, the defendant was duty bound to revise the pension, and pay it at the revised rate, with arrears thereof.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action, as the plaintiff's own case was that the pension scheme and the rules did not provide for any revision, periodical or otherwise, of the pension payable to the plaintiff and the members of his association. The court further held that the increases made by the bank, of its own accord, did not create any enforceable legal right of the plaintiff and the members of his association to get their pension periodically revised and increased, or any obligation of the defendant to increase it periodically on the basis of the cost-of-living index or otherwise.
Issues: Whether the plaint disclosed any cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: A civil suit can be maintained for enforcing either a right of the plaintiff or any person claiming through him, or any duty or obligation of the defendant, but not for creating a right such as the one for which the plaintiff has instituted the suit. The plaintiff's case, as pleaded in the plaint, leads to the only conclusion that he is not seeking enforcement of his any existing right, or any existing duty or obligation of the defendant. He has instituted the suit rather by saying that the defendant should increase the pension revising it on the basis of rise or fall of the price index.
Final Decision: The court allowed the defendant's application and rejected the plaint on the ground that it did not disclose any cause of action.
The defendant in the suit has taken out this application seeking an order rejecting the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action.
2. The plaintiff's case in the plaint is this. He is the General Secretary of ANZ Grindlays Bank Retired Management Staff Pensioners’ Association. He and the members of his association are former members of the Management Staff of ANZ Grindlays Bank that merged into the defendant on or about September 1st, 2002. In terms of Grindlays Bank Limited Indian Staff Pension Scheme Rules, made for implementation and operation of the Grindlays Bank Limited Indian Staff Pension Scheme Trust Deed dated December 27th, 1974, the members of the association are entitled to get pension; and on retirement from service they are getting it. Before its merger ANZ Grindlays Bank increased the rate of pension from time to time. But the defendant wrongfully failed and neglected to increase the rate of pension. Though the pension scheme does not provide for any revision, periodical or otherwise, of the pension linking it to the cost-of-living index, and pension was never increased by linking it to the cost-of-living index, by not increasing the pension periodically, linking it to the cost-of-living index, in due exercise of its discretion and power, the defendant has failed and neglected to discharge its duty and obligation. The pensioners are entitled in law to get their pension periodically revised, linking it to the cost-of-living index. Since by its inaction the defendant has thrown a cloud on their such right, they have become entitled to seek a declaration that the defendant is duty bound to revise the pension, and pay it at the revised rate, with arrears thereof.
3. Making out a case as stated in the preceding paragraph, the plaintiff prayed for leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and sought a declaration that he and all the other members of the association are entitled to a periodical review of the rate of pension payable to them, on the basis of rise or fall of the price index. He has also prayed for the consequential reliefs.
4. Mr. Deb, Counsel for the plaintiff, has taken a preliminary objection that in the affidavit-in-support of the master's summons taking out the application the deponent thereof having not stated that she had read the whole of the plaint or part thereof, the affidavit, an incompetent one, cannot be entertained, and hence the application should be dismissed.
5. I am unable to accept the contention. While in para 1 of the affidavit the deponent has said that she made herself acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, in para. 3 thereof she has said, “....from the plaint it would appear that the plaintiff is asking for declaration for increasing the amount paid to him as pension not in pursuant to any right of the plaintiff to claim the same but as a benevolent gesture of the defendant bank towards its ex-employees of non-award cadre as such cannot be demanded under any law for the time being in force."
6. I agree with Mr. Sengupta, Counsel for the defendant, that these statements made by the deponent of the affidavit are sufficient to hold that she took out the application after reading the plaint and forming an opinion that it did not disclose any cause of action. Mr. Sengupta is also right in saying that such a hyper-technical objection as raised by Mr. Deb should not be entertained, especially when the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cast a duty on the Court to reject a plaint in the circumstances mentioned therein.
7. According to Mr. Sengupta, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for the simple reason that it is the plaintiff's own case that the pension scheme and the rules do not provide for any revision, periodical or otherwise, of the pension payable to the plaintiff and the members of his association, and hence the question of revising the pension, linking it to the c
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.