IMPORTANT POINTS
The petitioners allege that neither the amendment to Rule 45 of the 1992 Staff Rules nor the 2014 Regulations can have any legal force for the reason that they have not been placed before Parliament in the manner prescribed in Section 50(4) of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. In these Writ Appeals, we are called upon to examine the validity of the application of the ‘State Bank of India Employees Defined Contribution Pension Scheme’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the contributory pension scheme’ or ‘the new pension scheme’) in respect of all categories of officers and employees who joined service of the State Bank of India on or after 1.8.2010. Incidentally, a question arises as to whether such employees are also entitled to a pension under the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1965 Rules’) which have been repealed and replaced by the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2014 Regulations’). The pension payable under the 1965 Rules/2014 Regulations is also referred to as the old pension scheme or the non-contributory pension scheme. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed.

2. W.A. No. 469/2018 arises out of the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 6897/2011. That Writ Petition was filed by respondents 1 to 50 in W.A. No. 469/2018, claiming that though they entered service after 1.8.2010, they are entitled to be members and to receive a pension upon retirement in terms of the 1965 Rules. They had challenged various Circulars, instructions etc., issued by the State Bank of India introducing the contributory pension scheme. On a consideration of the matter, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the respondents are not entitled to any order directing that they are entitled to receive a pension in terms of the 1965 Rules. This finding was essentially on the basis that the terms of their appointment clearly specified that they would be governed by the provisions of a new Pension Scheme and that there was no challenge to that condition and further that the respondents had accepted the said condition and joined the services of the bank. However, the learned Single Judge found that the contributory pension scheme was not brought into operation in the manner prescribed by the provisions contained in Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and therefore declared the said Scheme to be non-operational. This Court also found that the terms regarding payment of pension to respondents 1 to 50 will have to be decided by the Central Board of the State Bank of India. The State Bank of India and its officers have therefore filed W.A. No. 469/2018 challenging the Judgment.

3. W.A. No. 1729/2019 and W.A. No. 483/2020 arise out of the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 5105/2013. That Writ Petition was filed by the State Banks' Staff Union, Kerala Circle (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Union’) challenging the introduction of the contributory pension scheme on grounds which are essentially similar to the grounds raised in W.P. (C) No. 6897/2011. In W.P. (C) No. 5105/2013, it was also contended that the introduction of the new Pension Scheme is contrary to binding industrial settlements and therefore, it is in violation of the provisions in the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Single Judge disposed of W.P. (C) No. 5105/2013 essentially following the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 6897/2011 and holding that if and when the new Pension Scheme is validated in the manner observed in the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 6897/2011, it will be open to the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 5105/2013 to challenge the same. In other words, it was held that since the validity of the new Pension Scheme has already been examined in W.P. (C) No. 6897/2011 and found to be illegal, nothing further survives for consideration in the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 5105/2013, the State Bank of India and its Officers have filed W.A. No. 1729/2019. The Union has filed W.A. No. 483/2020 challenging the very same judgment to the extent it does not grant all the reliefs sought.

4. We have heard Sri. George Thomas Mevada, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State Bank of India and its Officers on the instructions