Back
2007 Supreme(All) 1516
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL
Kishan Swarup Sharma
Versus
Allahabad Bank and Others
C.M.W.P. No. 20796/2002
Decided On : 16-05-2007
For Petitioner: Manoj Kumar Namit Kumar Sharma
For Respondents: Mool Behari Saxena Himanshu Tiwari
The main legal point established in the judgment is the impact of the circular dated September 6, 1994, on the entitlement of existing employees to the old pension scheme, and the importance of effective communication regarding time-bound options.
Headnote:
PENSION - Allahabad Bank Employees Pension Scheme - Regulation 46, Regulation 53, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The court discussed the provisions of Regulation 46 and 53 of the 1979 Regulations, the settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the circular dated September 6, 1994, which allowed existing employees to opt for the old pension scheme. The court highlighted the importance of the circular and its impact on the entitlement of the petitioner to the old pension scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired bank employee, sought pension benefits under the old pension scheme. The bank rejected his application based on Regulation 46 of the 1979 Regulations. The petitioner challenged this decision through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's entitlement to the old pension scheme was impacted by the circular dated September 6, 1994, which allowed existing employees to opt for the old pension scheme. The court also noted that the time-bound nature of the option exercise was not effectively communicated to the employees, and therefore, the petitioner's late exercise of the option should not be a ground for rejection.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's entitlement to the old pension scheme, the impact of the circular dated September 6, 1994, and the time-bound nature of the option exercise.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's entitlement to the old pension scheme should be considered in light of the circular dated September 6, 1994, and the lack of effective communication regarding the time-bound nature of the option exercise. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the competent authority to reconsider the petitioner's claim in accordance with the circular and relevant provisions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the competent authority was directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim in light of the circular and relevant provisions, and pass a fresh order within three months.
(ANJANI KUMAR and SUDHIR AGARWAL, JJ. )
The petitioner, Kishan Swarup Shanna has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated January 25, 2002 issued by the Chief Manager (P A) Allahabad Bank, Culcutta rejecting his application for grant of pension under Allahabad Bank Employees Pension Scheme (Old). A further writ of mandamus has been sought commanding respondents to pay monthly pension to the petitioner with effect from June I, 200 I on regular basis in accordance with old pension scheme or the Pension Regulations, 1995.
2. The facts in brief as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as clerk in Allahabad Bank on November 15, 1967 and was promoted in officers grade on November 4, 1985. After promotion his terms and conditions, in officers cadre, were governed by Allahabad Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "1979 Regulation"). The Bank issued a circular dated September 6, 1994 pursuant to some settlement between All India Bank Employees. Association and Indian Banks Association J wherein a new scheme sought to be introduced and an option was also allowed to the existing employees in respect of old pension scheme. The petitioner exercised his option for old_ pension scheme vide letter dated November 30, ,j 1994. The said option was never declined or rejected by the competent authority. On May 31, 2001 the petitioner opted for voluntary retirement under the scheme and was allowed to 2 retire accordingly. He when requested the Bank to pay his pensionary benefits in accordance with the old pension scheme, by means of the impugned order the same has been rejected by the respondent No.2.
3. The Bank has filed a counter affidavit stating that 1979 Regulations came into force on July 1, 1979 under Regulation 3(a) of 1979 Regulations. The provision of gratuity and retiral benefits under Regulation 46 were 3 applicable to the existing employees and proviso thereto makes it clear that old pension scheme would not be applicable to the officers who are recruited/promoted after July 1, 1979. Since the petitioner was promoted in officers 41 cadre on November 4, 1985 and therefore he was not entitled for pension under old scheme, The circular dated September 6, 1994 has to be read consistent with 1979 Regulation and no benefit can be allowed to the petitioner contrary 4~ to Regulation 46 of 1979 Regulation.
4. We have heard Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mool Bihari Saxena, advocate appearing for the Bank and 5( have perused the record.
5. It is said that after resolution of various Banks including Allahabad Bank, the Government of India appointed Pi1\ai Committee in 1973 which submitted its report dated May 30, 1974 and para 8.24 at page 117 thereof reads as under:
"We recommend the following standardized pattern of terminal benefits:
(i) There should be a contributory provident fund scheme in all the banks. The rate of contribution should be 8-1/3 per cent of the pay; pay for this purpose being defined as. basic pay plus officiating allowance, if any. This rate of contribution shall apply to all new incumbents to the posts of officers in Punjab National Bank also; but the present rates of contribution there may be allowed to continue in respect of existing officers.
Regarding entitlement of provident fund balances, the existing rules are found to be satisfactory and require no change.
(ii) The following provisions regarding gratuity may be made applicable to all the 14 banks; Gratuity should be paid at the rate of one months pay for each completed year of service subject to a maximum of 15 months pay, in the event of retirement or death in service, or disablement rendering further service impracticable or voluntary retirement or resignation after 10 years continuous service. Pay for the purpose of calculating gratuity will be basic pay and officiating allowance, if any, paid during the 12 months p
