Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, JJ.
Bank of India and Others – Appellants
Versus
Sahajanand Rai and Another – Respondents
Special Appeal No. 1 of 2024
Decided On : 05-02-2024
PENSIONARY BENEFITS - Employee Removal - Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, Settlement, 2002, Settlement, 2010 - Regulation 22 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 provided that resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past services and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. Clause 6(b) of the Settlement, 2002, allowed an employee found guilty of gross misconduct to be removed from service with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment. The court discussed the interpretation of these provisions and their impact on the entitlement of pensionary benefits to an employee who has been removed from service.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-petitioner, an employee of Bank of India, was removed from service in terms of Clause 6(b) of the Settlement, 2002. He claimed entitlement to retiral benefits in light of the Settlement, 2002, notwithstanding a contrary circular issued by the Bank. The Bank rejected his claim to opt for pension scheme, leading to the filing of a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was entitled to superannuation benefits in the form of Contributory Provident Fund under the Settlement, 2002, and that the option to opt for pension should be available to an employee who has been removed from service under Clause 6(b) of the Settlement, 2002. The court also held that the respondent was entitled to leave encashment, as he had been extended superannuation benefits in the form of Contributory Provident Fund.
Issues: The main issue was whether an employee removed from service in terms of Clause 6(b) of the Settlement, 2002, is entitled to pensionary benefits, and whether the option to opt for pension under the Settlement, 2010, should be available to such an employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an employee removed from service under Clause 6(b) of the Settlement, 2002, should be entitled to superannuation benefits, and that the option to opt for pension under the Settlement, 2010, should be available to such an employee. The court also found that the respondent was entitled to leave encashment, as he had been extended superannuation benefits in the form of Contributory Provident Fund.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Bank, holding that the respondent was entitled to opt for pension under the Settlement, 2010, and to leave encashment, as he had been extended superannuation benefits in the form of Contributory Provident Fund.
JUDGMENT :
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. This intra-court appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 22nd March, 2023, in Writ (A) No. 53237 of 2014 whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the respondent-petitioner is held entitled to retiral benefits in light of Clause 6(b) of Memorandum of Settlement, dated 10.4.2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Settlement, 2002’) notwithstanding a contrary circular issued by the Bank. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda vs. S.K. Kool (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Another, (2014) 2 SCC 715, to allow the claim of respondent-petitioner.
2. Facts admitted on record are that the respondent-petitioner was employed as Cashier-cum-Clerk in the appellant Bank of India. He was proceeded with departmentally on various charges and ultimately an order of punishment came to be passed against him on 19.9.2002, directing his removal from the service in terms of Clause 6(b) of the Settlement, 2002. This order of punishment was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondent and ultimately his Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 30627 of 2010 got dismissed on 15.11.2010.
3. Pensionary benefits to the employees of bank were governed by the provisions of Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Pension Regulations, 1995’). Regulation 2(t) of the Pension Regulations of 1995 defined ‘pension’ to include the basic pension and additional pension referred to in Chapter VI of the Pension Regulations, 1995. Pensioner meant an employee eligible for pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995. Qualifying service has been defined under Regulation 2(w) and together with Regulation 14 provides it to mean a minimum of 10 years of service in the Bank on the date of his retirement.
4. Regulation 22 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 provided that resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past services and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. Regulation 2(y) defined retirement to mean cessation from Bank’s service on (a) attaining the age of superannuation specified in Service Regulations or Settlements; (b) voluntary retirement in accordance with provisions contained in Regulation 29; (c) on premature retirement by the Bank before attaining the age of superannuation specified in Service Regulations or Settlement.
5. In terms of the provisions of Pension Regulations, 1995, an employee who is removed from service would have his entire past service forfeited under Pension Regulations, 1995 and shall not qualify for pensionary benefits.
6. It transpires that the Settlement, 2002, entered into between the bank and its employees however provided for a course distinct from the scheme contemplated in the Pension Regulations, 1995. Clause 6(b) of the Settlement, 2002, is relevant and is reproduced hereinafter:
(a)....................
(b) be removed from service with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment.”
7. Appellant was punished vide order dated 19.9.2002 in terms of Clause 6(b) of the Settlement, 2002, and, therefore, notwithstanding his removal from service the respondent became entitled to superannuation benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would otherwise be due under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment.
8. At the time of removal of respondent from service in terms of Clause 6(b) of the Settlement, 2002, there existed a scheme of Contributory Provident Fund for the employees of the Bank. An earlier Memorandum of Settlement, dated 29th October, 1993 was arrived at, as per which, pension in lieu o
Discharge with superannuation does not equate to retirement; former employees punished by discharge are ineligible for pension benefits due to strict regulatory definitions.
Removal from service does not automatically forfeit pensionary benefits if the employee meets the qualifying service, emphasizing a harmonious interpretation of disciplinary and pension regulations.
An employee inflicted with the punishment of removal from service is entitled to superannuation benefits as per the Memorandum of Settlement, despite the provisions of the Pension Regulations.
(1) Workman would be entitled to receive terminal benefits for the period of service he had rendered.(2) Punishment – Modified penalty as imposed by Appellate Authority will attain finality if it is ....
(1) Resignation and Voluntary Retirement are different – Employees resigning from service and employees retiring from service voluntarily constitute two different classes – Treating two classes diffe....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
