SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 869

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
ABN AMRO BANK MUMBAI PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION – Appellant
Versus
M/S. NATWEST MARKETS PLC. – Respondent
S 1537 / 2012



The court ruled that past services do not constitute valid consideration for a guaranteed pension increment, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.

Headnote:(A) Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Pension Rules, 1975 - Plaintiffs, associations of pensioners, sought declaration against Defendant-Bank for guaranteed 10% pension increment, reduced to 5% - Court held no enforceable contract for 10% increment exists, as past services do not constitute valid consideration - Plaintiffs' claims dismissed. (Paras 1, 28, 56, 74)

(B) Jurisdiction and Maintainability - Plaintiffs, as registered associations, have the right to sue on behalf of their members; technical objections regarding maintainability rejected. (Paras 30, 32)

(C) Legitimate Expectation and Estoppel - No legitimate expectation created; Defendant entitled to reduce increment based on financial considerations. (Paras 57, 70)

(D) Court’s Findings - No binding contract for guaranteed pension increment; Plaintiffs not entitled to monetary relief or injunction. (Paras 72, 74)

JUDGMENT :

1. Plaintifs, who are associations of pensioners of Defendant-Bank, have instituted this Suit for declaration that their members are entitled to guaranteed pension increment of 10% every year and that the reduction in pension increment efected from 10% to 5% by the Bank efective from January 2011 is illegal. Plaintifs have also sought a money decree in the sum of Rs. 131,85,00,000/-against the Defendant-Bank.

A. FACTS

2. Plaintifs are two associations of pensioners of the erstwhile ABN AMRO Bank- now the ‘M/s. Nat West Markets Plc’’. Plaintif No. 1 is the association of pensioners of Mumbai, whereas Plaintif No. 2 is the association representing pensioners of Kolkata. Both associations have filed the present petition challenging the Defendant’s action in reducing the increment of pension payable to their members from 10% p.a. to 5% p.a. by impugned letters dated 27 October 2009, 19 April 2010 and 8 February 2011. Plaintifs have accordingly sought a mandatory injunction to restrain the Defendant-Bank from reducing the increment of pension payable to their members below 10%. Plaintifs have also prayed for monetary decree in the sum of Rs.131,85,00,000/- towards the diference in the amount of pension paid to its members on account of reduction of increment to 5% from 10%.

3. Initially the suit was filed only by ABN AMRO Bank Mumbai Pensioners Association representing the pensioners of the erstwhile the ABN AMRO Bank posted in Mumbai. Another association named ABN AMRO Bank Pensioners Association Kolkata is formed by pensioners representing the those based in Kolkata, which has been impleaded as Plaintif No.2 by amending the plaint. Names of members of both the Plaintif-Associations are listed in the list annexed at Exhibit-A and A-1 to the plaint respectively. As per that list, there were 116 members of Mumbai Association and 66 members of Kolkata Association, on whose behalf the present suit has been filed. Plaintifs state from 1 March 2008, ABN AMRO Pensioners Association’s Coordination Committee has been formed consisting of members of Mumbai and Kolkata Associations for taking up common causes of the pensioners with the Defendant-Bank.

4. Defendant is a Bank carrying on business of banking under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and used to operate under the name of ‘ABN AMRO Bank M.V.’ until October 2007 when its global operations, including India operations, were taken over by the Royal Bank of Scotland Plc. It appears that on 26 December 1976, the Defendant established a pension scheme for its employees for the purpose of providing pension to them in accordance with the entitlements as per the terms of service. The pension scheme is documented in the form of Trust Deed and has varied from time to time. It appears that until the year 1997, the pension payable under the Pension Scheme was fixed without any yearly increment. On 11 February 1997, Defendant sent a letter to Coordination Committee announcing guaranteed increase of 5% in the pension on 1st day of January every year to ofset the increase in the cost of living. Accordingly, a Memorandum of Settlement was executed between the Defendant and the Coordination Committee, under which it was agreed inter-alia, that there would be 5% increase in pre-commuted pension on first day of January every year. By letter dated 8 August 2000, the Defendant agreed to grant guaranteed increase of 7% in pension on first day of January every year on an interim basis to pensioners who had retired on/or before 30 June1994.

5. The Plaintif-Associations demanded a further increase in the annual increment of pension to 12% by letter dated 15 May 2001. The Defendant by its Letter dated 31 May 2001, agreed to grant guaranteed increase of 10% in pension on first day of every year to all pensioners. This is how the members of the Plaintif Associations started receiving 10% annual increment in the amount of pre- commuted pension since 1 July 2001. The system of grant of 10% increment on first

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top