IMPORTANT POINT
Employees opting for a Voluntary Retirement Scheme cannot claim additional benefits under pension regulations if they do not meet the eligibility criteria specified in those regulations.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant-Associate Bank’s Retired Officers Association (in short as “Appellants)

BRIEF FACTS:

2. At the outset, it is noticed that the entire case of the appellants hinges on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India & another Vs. K. Mohandas and others, (2009) 5 SCC 313.

3. The appellants were the employees of the erstwhile State Bank of Saurashtra (for short, “SBS”). On 06.02.2001, the State Bank of Saurashtra introduced a SBS Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short, “SBSVRS”) for those employees, who had put in 15 years of service or have completed 40 years of age as on 31.01.2001, against payment of ex gratia amount of 60 days’ salary (Pay + Stagnation Increments + Special Pay of Permanent Nature + D.A.) for each completed years of service. The said SBSVRS was introduced vide Circular dated 06.02.2001 signed by the General Manager Mr. I.P. Mishra.

4. The Scheme was made open from 19.02.2001 to 10.03.2001 (inclusive of both the dates during which period the scheme would remain open).

5. Accordingly, the appellants opted for voluntary retirement under the Scheme and they were also conferred all the benefits accruing from the Scheme. All this happened in the year 2001. It appears that there were some issues raised before the various High Courts for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced in the year 2000 by the various banks, in view of the advice given by the Government of Indian, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) dated 05.09.2000. Since, there were conflicting judgments of the various High Courts, the dispute landed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the case of K. Mohandas (supra), ultimately, laid the dispute at rest and issued directions relating to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 (for short, “VRS 2000”) while considering the State Bank of (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short, “the Pension Regulations, 1995”) of the concerned banks. The employees of the respondent-State Bank of India are governed by the pari materia (SBS) Pension Regulations, 1995.

6. After the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the Indian Banks’ Association issued a Circular dated 17.08.2019, in line with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Mohandas (supra) and it was suggested that the concerned banks may extend benefit of Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 to the VRS optees of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000, after obtaining sanction at appropriate level and pay the difference between the revised pension payable and pension paid to them.

7. Thereafter, in light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the appellants, demanded similar treatment vide representations dated 26.08.2009, 10.09.2009, 12.10.2009, 11.03.2010, 30.10.2009, 10.02.2010 and 16.03.2010. Since they were not offered the benefits, they filed the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 5750 of 2010, claiming the benefits arising from the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995.

8. The learned Single Judge did not find favour with the prayers made by the members of the appellant association and rejected the writ petition. Being aggrieved, they have assailed the decision before this Court by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS (EMPLOYEES)

9. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehul S. Shah, appearing with learned advocate Mr.Deepak Khanchandani, for the members of the appellant association has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the writ petition since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of K. Mohandas (supra). It is submitted that the appellants are entitled for the benefits a