Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 517 (CAL)

SUBHAS CHANDRA DE v. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

2004-07-30

J.K.BISWAS

body2004
JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J. ( 1 ) FOUR persons have joined together in this writ petition. Their common grievance is that on their opting for voluntary retirement the pension benefits to which they became entitled in terms of the Scheme were not given to them. ( 2 ) THE petitioners were in the employment of the respondent Bank (United Bank of India ). In 1995 the bank introduced United Bank of india (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. Regulation 29 provided for pension on voluntary retirement. Sub-regulation (5) of regulation 29 provides that the qualifying service of an employee seeking voluntary retirement under the Regulations would be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service should not in any case exceed 33 years, and it also must not go beyond such employee's date of superannuation. ( 3 ) ON December 23, 2000 the bank notified a Voluntary Retirement Scheme. In paragraph 6 (ii) of such Scheme it was mentioned that an employee seeking voluntary retirement under it would be eligible for pension (including commuted value of pension)as per United Bank of India (Employees')pension Regulations, 1995. ( 4 ) AS the petitioners were eligible to opt for voluntary retirement in terms of the Scheme dated December 23, 2000, they made the necessary applications on January 1, 2001. The bank accepted their offers, and they were released on September 22, 2001. ( 5 ) AT the time of opting for voluntary retirement the actual lengths of service of the petitioners were - (i) the first petitioner 30 years, (ii) the second petitioner 32 years, (iii)the third petitioner 31 years, and (iv) the fourth petitioner 23 years. While granting them the benefits on their voluntary retirement, the bank granted them benefits of pension only for their actual lengths of service. ( 6 ) THE petitioners raised objections. They claimed that in terms of paragraph 6 (ii) of the scheme, read with Regulation 29 (5) of the pension Regulations, 1995, they were entitled to get the benefit of appropriate increase in their lengths of service. According to them, while the first petitioner having actual length of 30 years' service was entitled to pension on the basis of 33 years' qualifying service, the second petitioner was also entitled to the benefits of 33 years' qualifying service, though his actual: length of service was 32 years. According to them, while the first petitioner having actual length of 30 years' service was entitled to pension on the basis of 33 years' qualifying service, the second petitioner was also entitled to the benefits of 33 years' qualifying service, though his actual: length of service was 32 years. Similarly, they claimed that though the third petitioner's actual length of service was 31 years, he would be entitled to 33 years' benefits, and after serving 23 years, the fourth petitioner was entitled to benefits for 28 years. ( 7 ) THE bank did (sic) not give the benefits as claimed by the petitioners. Hence the petitioners took out the present writ petition. The bank is contesting, it has filed an opposition. The petitioners have filed a reply. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the provisions in the scheme and the Regulation, the petitioners were entitled to the benefits as claimed by them. He submits that after considering identical provisions in the Voluntary Retirement schemes and the Pension Regulations framed and notified by Allahabad Bank, Indian Bank and Punjab National Bank, decisions have been given by this Court and the High Court of madras, and similar benefits claimed by the petitioners in the relevant writ petitions were granted to them. He relies on (1) the unreported decision dated October 6, 2003 given by a learned Judge of the Madras High Court in Writ petition No. 1138 of 2001 (K. Radhakrishnan v. Indian Bank), (2) the unreported single bench decision of this Court dated November 6, 2003 given in Writ Petition No. 624 of 2003 (Manik Kundu and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.)and (3) the unreported single Bench decision of this Court dated April 29, 2004 given in Writ petition No. 4337 (W) of 2004 (Amitava Mitra and Ors. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. ). ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the bank submits that benefits specified in Regulation 29 (5) are available only to those employees who take voluntary retirement in terms of Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, and not under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated december 23, 2000. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. ). ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the bank submits that benefits specified in Regulation 29 (5) are available only to those employees who take voluntary retirement in terms of Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, and not under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated december 23, 2000. His further contention is that to remove the doubt, by notification dated january 12, 2002 Regulation 28 of the Pension regulations, 1995 was substituted with retrospective effect from September 1, 2000, and in view of such amendment of the 1995 regulations, the petitioners would not be entitled to the benefits as claimed by them. He does not dispute the fact that the decisions relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioners were given after considering the Pension regulations and Voluntary Retirement schemes which contained provisions that are identical with the provisions in Regulation 29 (5) of the 1995 Pension Regulations of the bank, and in paragraph 6 (ii) of its Voluntary retirement Scheme dated December 23, 2000. ( 10 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the decisions cited at the Bar, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits as claimed by them. ( 11 ) REGULATION 29 of the Pension regulations, 1995 framed by the bank specifically deals with the case of pension on voluntary retirement. True that in its sub-regulation (5) it has been mentioned that the benefits specified therein would be available to the employees retiring voluntarily under it, but it is to be noted that on the date of framing and notifying the 1995 Regulations, the Scheme under which the petitioners opted for voluntary retirement was not in existence. The Scheme was notified on December 23, 2000. In the Scheme it was specifically mentioned that an employee seeking voluntary retirement under it would be entitled to the benefits of pension (including commuted value of pension) as per United Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. ( 12 ) THE contention of the bank that the employees seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme would be entitled to superannuation pension specified in Regulation 28 of the 1995 regulations is totally misplaced. Such contention is not consonant with the spirit and purpose of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme by which employees of the bank were invited to opt for voluntary retirement with additional benefits. Such contention is not consonant with the spirit and purpose of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme by which employees of the bank were invited to opt for voluntary retirement with additional benefits. The employees of the bank could have opted for pension on voluntary retirement only on taking voluntary retirement in terms of regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995. It is apparent that to encourage employees of the bank to opt for the voluntary retirement, otherwise than in terms of the provisions in Regulation 29 of the Pension regulations, the bank decided to frame a separate Scheme, and such separate Scheme was framed to give the willing employees additional benefits, and not to take away the existing benefits as would have been available to them in ordinary course under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations. It seems to me that for this specific purpose in paragraph 6 (ii) of the Scheme, instead of mentioning about superannuation pension, it was mentioned that the willing employees would get pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995. ( 13 ) OTHERWISE also, the concept of giving superannuation pension to the employees seeking voluntary retirement cannot be fitted by giving a rational interpretation to the relevant provisions. Superannuation pension is available only to those employees who retire on attaining the age of superannuation; they form a distinctly separate class. The persons seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme cannot be regarded as persons retiring on attaining the age of superannuation for the purpose of entitling them to superannuation pension under regulation 28 of the Pension Regulations, 1995. The contention and stand taken by the respondents are inherently conflicting and contradicting (sic) the purpose seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme would be regarded as persons retiring voluntarily, and they would be entitled to pension as such only. ( 14 ) I find no substance in the contention that in view of amendment of the 1995 regulations with effect from September 1, 2000, the petitioners would not get the benefits as claimed by them. Their claim was never to be decided in terms of Regulation 28 of the pension Regulations, and hence amendment of this Regulation with retrospective effect could not change the situation. Their claim was never to be decided in terms of Regulation 28 of the pension Regulations, and hence amendment of this Regulation with retrospective effect could not change the situation. ( 15 ) I also find that after considering identical provisions in the Schemes and Pension regulations, framed and notified by others similarly placed banks, in similar writ petitions decisions have already been given for directing the banks to give the benefits as are claimed by the petitioners in this case. So, in my considered view, same benefits should be given to the petitioners, when similar provisions govern their cases. ( 16 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. It is ordered that the respondents shall give benefits of pension to the petitioners after increasing their qualifying service in terms of Regulation 29 (5) of the pension Regulations, 1995. The benefits shall be given to the petitioners within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order by the respondents. ( 17 ) I am of the view that since the respondents did not give the claimed benefits to the petitioners by giving an interpretation to the provisions of the relevant Regulation and scheme, and such interpretation was given by them bonafide, they should not be saddled with interests and costs. The disputes needed adjudication by this Court, and hence I am of the view that direction for payment of interests and costs would not be just and proper. For these reasons, I am not inclined to grant any interests and costs in favour of the petitioners. Hence there will be no order for interests and costs in the writ petition. ( 18 ) URGENT certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied, for, shall be made available to the parties.