Back
2021 Supreme(HP) 414
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Suneel Awasthi, JJ.
Chaman Singh - Appellant
Versus
Uco Bank & Ors. - Respondents
C.W.P. No. 3082 of 2016
Decided On : 02-08-2021
Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate
The proviso in a regulation should not nullify the main provision, and beneficial provisions in regulations should be construed liberally.
Headnote:
Pension Eligibility - UCO Bank Regulations - 14, 18
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Indian Army member, sought pension eligibility from UCO Bank after serving for 9 years, 10 months, and 5 days. The bank denied the request citing the requirement of a minimum 10 years of service.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed UCO Bank's regulations 14 and 18, which stipulate the qualifying service for pension eligibility and the treatment of broken service periods. The court emphasized that the proviso in regulation 18 should not nullify the main provision and ruled in favor of the petitioner, citing a similar precedent.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's service period could be rounded off to meet the 10-year requirement for pension eligibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proviso in regulation 18 should not unduly interfere with the right conferred by the main provision, and the petitioner's service period should be rounded off, making him eligible for pension.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, holding the petitioner entitled to pension in accordance with the regulations and directed the respondents to release the pensionary dues within a specified timeframe.
JUDGMENT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The moot question in this petition is whether the period of 9 (nine) years, 10 (ten) months and 5 (five) days of services rendered by the petitioner can be rounded off by 10 (ten) years, so as to enable him for grant of pension.
2. This petition was earlier allowed vide judgment dated 27.06.2018 on the basis of the regulations framed by the respondents i.e. UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, more particularly, regulations 14 and 18.
3. However, later the bank filed a Review Petition No. 11 of 2019 before this Court on the ground that the respondents while filing reply had even though placed copy of regulations but the same was not complete and on this account, the review petition was allowed and the petition was directed to be restored to its original number.
4. The petitioner initially served in the Indian Army from 1973 to 1986 and was discharged from service on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as armed guard with the respondents at its branch at Kihar where he joined on 26.06.2006. The petitioner retired from the service of the bank on 30.04.2016 after rendering 9 (nine) years, 10 (ten) months and 5 (five) days of service. The request made by the petitioner for grant of pension was turned down by the respondents on the ground that he had not completed minimum 10 years of service in the bank, therefore, not eligible for pension.
5. Now, adverting to the question posed in this petition, it would be necessary to notice that respondents had framed regulations, which are necessary for the adjudication of this case are contained in regulations 14 and 18, which reads as under:-
"14. Qualifying service-Subject to the other conditions contained in these regulations, an employee who has rendered a minimum of 10 years of service in the Bank on the date of his retirement or the date on which he is deemed to have retired shall qualify for pension.
18. Broken period of service of less than one year. - If the period of service of an employee includes broken period of service less than one year, then if such broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year and if such broken period is six months or less it shall be ignored. Provided that provisions of this regulation shall not apply for determining the minimum service required to make an employee eligible for pension."
6. A bare perusal of the provisions as extracted above, would indicate that in order to entitle an employee for pension, employee is required to render 10 (ten) years of service in the bank on the date of his retirement. However, the period of service of an employee include broken period of service less than one year, then if such broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year and if such broken period is six months or less it shall be ignored. However, difficulty come in the way of the petitioner is contained in the proviso appended with this provision which states that "Provided that provisions of this regulation shall not apply for determining the minimum service required to make an employee eligible for pension."
7. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Suneel Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents that a proviso cannot take away the right conferred by the main provision, as it is more than settled that proviso will not normally be construed as reducing the purview of enactment to a nullity or take away the right conferred by enactment.
8. It is more than settled that the proviso cannot subsume the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullifying the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision.
9. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Director of Education (Secondary) and another vs. Pushpendra Kumar and others etc., (1998) AIR SC 2230, wherein it was observed as under:-
8. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate empl
