The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the respondent authorities not to allow pensionary benefits to the petitioner was not supported under the law and adversely affected the petitioner's vested right, leading to the court setting aside the decision and directing the authorities to calculate and pay the petitioner's pension, as per his entitlement, in terms of clause 14 Regulation, along with other benefits.

Headnote:
Voluntary Retirement Scheme - Pensionary Benefits - UBI (Employees') Pension Regulation, 1995 - 28, 29 - The court found that the petitioner, having completed 40 years of service, was entitled to apply for voluntary retirement under the scheme. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the UBI (Employees') Pension Regulation, 1995 and the amendment affecting the qualifying service for pension. It concluded that the decision of the respondent authorities not to allow pensionary benefits to the petitioner was not supported by law and adversely affected the petitioner's vested right. The court set aside the decision and directed the authorities to calculate and pay the petitioner's pension, as per his entitlement, in terms of clause 14 Regulation, along with other benefits.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was appointed as Arm Guard in the UBI and was later promoted to Cashier. The Bank floated a voluntary retirement scheme, and the petitioner, having completed 40 years of service, applied for voluntary retirement. After his application was accepted, he expressed his willingness to withdraw from the scheme, but the request was turned down by the respondents. The Bank later informed the petitioner that he was not eligible for pensionary benefits under the amended Regulation 28 of UBI (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the decision of the respondent authorities not to allow pensionary benefits to the petitioner was not supported under the law and adversely affected the petitioner's vested right. The court set aside the decision and directed the authorities to calculate and pay the petitioner's pension, as per his entitlement, in terms of clause 14 Regulation, along with other benefits.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the petitioner to pensionary benefits under the voluntary retirement scheme and the UBI (Employees') Pension Regulation, 1995.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision of the respondent authorities not to allow pensionary benefits to the petitioner was not supported under the law and adversely affected the petitioner's vested right. The court set aside the decision and directed the authorities to calculate and pay the petitioner's pension, as per his entitlement, in terms of clause 14 Regulation, along with other benefits.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the court directed the authorities to calculate and pay the petitioner's pension, as per his entitlement, in terms of clause 14 Regulation, along with other benefits. No costs were awarded.

1. The petitioner was appointed as Arm Guard in the UBI, Narayanpur Branch vide order dated 21.7.1988 issued by the Regional Manager of UBI and accordingly he joined on 5.8.1988 as Arm Guard. In due course of time, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Cashier in the year 1991 by the competent authority of the Bank.

2. While the petitioner was serving in the aforesaid capacity as Cashier under the respondent Bank in the same branch and was posted in the Hatilung Branch in North Lakhimpur, the Bank floated a voluntary retirement scheme for Officers and other staffs, with a view to streamline the functioning of the Bank by increasing market competition and customer's expectation for initiating Bank's optimum productivity and profitability. The said scheme was titled as 'United Bank of India's Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000'.

3. The relevant eligibility criteria for seeking benefit under the said scheme by an employee as provided under clause 4, 5 and 6 are quoted below :

"4 Eligibility. - (i) All permanent full time employees of the Bank will be eligible for seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme provided they met the following eligibility criteria on the date of application :

(a) They have completed 15 years of service, or

(b) Attained 40 years of age.

(ii) However, the employees falling in the following categories are not eligible to seek voluntary retirement under the Scheme -

(a) Specialist officers

(b) Employees who have executed service bonds and have not completed it.

(d) Employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated/pending or who are under suspension.

(e) Employees appointed on contract basis.

(f) Highly skilled and qualified employees who have attended specialized training.

(g) Any other category of employees as may be specified by the Board.

5. Amount of Ex-gratia. - An employee seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme be entitled to the Ex-gratia amount mentioned below in para (a) of (b), whichever is less.

(a) Two months' salary (pay plus stagnation increment plus; special pay plus dearness relief) for each completed year of service, or

(b) Salary (pay plus stagnation increment plus ; special dearness relief) for the number of months service left.

6. Other benefits. - An employee seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme will be eligible for the following benefits in addition to the ex-gratia amount mentioned in para No. 5 of the Scheme -

(i) Gratuity as per Gratuity ct/Service gratuity as the case may be,

(ii) (a) Pension(including commuted value of pension) as per United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, or

(b) Bank's contribution towards Staff Provident Fund as per existing rules, as the case may be.

(iii) Leave encashment as per rules."

4. The petitioner having fallen within the eligibility criteria by attaining 40 years of age became eligible to opt for voluntary retirement under the said scheme made such an offer. The respondents after scrutiny of the application of the petitioner, duly accepted the same and this acceptance was intimated to, him vide letter dated 14.3.2001 issued by the Manager of the Bank.

5. After passing of the aforesaid order, vide letter dated 5.6.2001, the petitioner changed his mind and expressed his willingness for withdrawal from the Scheme and accordingly he wrote to the authority to the effect but the said request was turned down by the respondents vide letter dated 12.10.2001. The petitioner again indicated that his dues regarding leave encashment and SPF has been settled and he was prepared to refund the same, if he is allowed to withdraw the voluntary retirement scheme. The Bank vide letter dated 16.7.2003 intimated the petitioner that since the petitioner has not completed 15 years of service at the time of retirement under VRS-2000 which is the eligibility criteria for getting pensionary benefits under amended Regulation 28 of United Bank of India (Employees') Pension

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2007 Supreme(Gau) 349

GAUHATI HIGH COURTH.N.Sarma, J.Ganesh Ch.Konwar -AppellantVersusUnited Bank of India -ResopndentW.P.(C) No. 9612 of 2003 Decided On : 15-05-2007

Judicial Analysis

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
H.N.Sarma, J.
Ganesh Ch.Konwar -Appellant
Versus
United Bank of India -Resopndent
W.P.(C) No. 9612 of 2003
Decided On : 15-05-2007