Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 110 (HP)

MAST RAM v. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

2005-04-28

A.K.GOEL, SURJIT SINGH

body2005
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J.—The petitioner, who was earlier an employee of the State Bank of Patiala, impleaded as respondent in this petition, has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:— (a) The writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs. (b) That the Annexure P-9 be quashed and set aside. (c) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner with 18% interest from the date he retired under State Bank of Patiala voluntary retirement scheme that is 31.3.2001. (d) The respondents be directed to condone two months delay in the case of the petitioner on humanitarian grounds and he may be given pension as a special case. (e) The respondents be directed to take back the petitioner in service and allow him to complete two months in service so that he is eligible for pension under the relevant rules. 2. Facts as disclosed in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner was employed as a Teller with respondent No. 1, i.e. the State Bank of Patiala. He joined service on 22.5.1981. In the year 2001 the respondent No. 1 introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme known as State Bank of Patiala Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SBPVRS). As per this scheme an employee who had put in*15 years of service or had completed 40 years of age as on 31st December, 2004 was eligible for voluntary retirement. The scheme was open from 15.2.2001 to 1.3.2001. The petitioner who had put in 19 years and 10 months of service also applied for voluntary retirement. Petitioner claims that at the time of making of the application, he was assured by the officials of the respondent-Bank that he would be entitled to pension as the Regulations of the Bank provided for grant of pension to the employee who had served for 15 years or more. Petitioners request for voluntary retirement was acceded to and he was retired. However, no pension was granted to him. He made various representations and exhausted other domestic channels for redressal of his grievance, i.e. grant of pension to him, but to no avail. Ultimately he filed a writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 1102 of 2001 which he withdrew on 19.5.2003 when his Counsel stated that he (petitioner) intended to seek redressal of his grievance from the respondent-Bank. He made various representations and exhausted other domestic channels for redressal of his grievance, i.e. grant of pension to him, but to no avail. Ultimately he filed a writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 1102 of 2001 which he withdrew on 19.5.2003 when his Counsel stated that he (petitioner) intended to seek redressal of his grievance from the respondent-Bank. The Court ordered that the petitioner would make a representation within six weeks and directed the Bank to consider the same on merits and to dispose that of within a period of four months and while considering and disposing of the said representation to look into the aspect whether the pension could be granted by relaxation of the pension Regulations in case there was no specific rule/regulation for grant of pension to the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation within the time fixed by this Court vide order dated 19.5.2003. The respondents considered and rejected the representation vide Annexure P-9. This was also done within the time frame given by the Court vide order dated 19.5.2003 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. 3. Now the petitioner has again approached this Court pleading that the representation has wrongly been rejected. His plea is that he applied for voluntary retirement believing that he would be entitled to pension as he had put in more than 15 years of service. It is alleged that there was a communication dated December 11, 2000 Annexure P-10, addressed by the Indian Banks Association to all the Banks, including the respondents-Bank, asking for making amendment in the Pension Regulations so as to provide for grant of pension to those employees, who had put in 15 years of service and wanted to seek voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, that was to come into operation in the first quarter of the year 2001. It is also alleged that the officials of the respondent-Bank had assured the petitioner that he would be entitled to pension. In the alternative his plea is that before joining the Bank service he had rendered military service from July, 1963 to April, 1979 and this service was required to be added to the service rendered by him with the respondent-Bank and when so added the total length of his service crosses the mark of minimum service of 20 years for grant of pension. It is also averred in the petition that the petitioner has not been even paid the amount of Contributory Provident Fund (wrongly termed as PPF in the petition) and that the omission to pay this amount also suggests that he is entitled to pension because an employee of the Bank is entitled either to pension or the Contributory Provident Fund. 4. Respondents in their reply have alleged that the petitioner is not entitled to pension and even to the Contributory Provident Fund, as per Regulations of the Bank. It is alleged that representation made by the petitioner, after the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition, has rightly been rejected. The alternative plea of the petitioner that the service rendered by him in the Indian Army is required to be added to the service rendered by him in the Bank of the respondent has also been controverted and it is alleged that the Regulations of the Bank specifically provide that such service does not qualify for the purpose of pension to be granted to an employee of the Bank on his retirement whether voluntary or on superannuation. 5. During the course of hearing of the matter, learned Counsel for the petitioner (Sh. Anuj Nag, Advocate) laid much stress on a communication addressed by the Indian Banks Association (Annexure P-10) to Designated Officers of all Public Sector Banks whereby the Banks were informed that the Government of India had after examining the proposal conveyed its approval and had desired that the Indian Banks Association advise banks to make necessary amendments to their Pension Regulations so as to make a provision for grant of pension to those employees who apply for voluntary retirement after having rendered a minimum of 15 years of service. The respondent-Bank does not deny having received this communication but its plea is that the communication received from the said Association was only advisory in nature and that it (the respondent No. 1) did not act upon it and made no amendment to its Regulations. Learned Counsel for the petitioner admitted that no amendment has been carried out in the Regulations of the respondent-Bank, pursuant to the aforesaid communication (Annexure P-10). 6. The State Bank of Patiala Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SBPVRS) under which the petitioner took retirement is at (Annexure P-l). Learned Counsel for the petitioner admitted that no amendment has been carried out in the Regulations of the respondent-Bank, pursuant to the aforesaid communication (Annexure P-10). 6. The State Bank of Patiala Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SBPVRS) under which the petitioner took retirement is at (Annexure P-l). Now as per para-7 (iii) of this Scheme, the employee seeking voluntary retirement is to get pension or Banks contribution to Provident Fund, as the case may be, as per rules applicable on the relevant date, on the basis of actual years of service rendered. Regulation 29 of the Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, extract of which (certified to be true) is available on the record, provides that an employee who has completed 20 years qualifying service may seek voluntary retirement and such an employee will be entitled to pension. A combined reading of the Scheme and the aforesaid Regulation makes it plainly clear that an employee seeking retirement before putting in 20 years of service with the Bank, under the Scheme of Voluntary Retirement or otherwise is not entitled to pension. Under such circumstances, no fault can be found with the rejection of the representation of the petitioner by the respondent-Bank for grant of pension on his having voluntary retired under the State Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001. 7. The petitioners plea that the service rendered by him in the Indian Army was required to be added is also without merit. Regulation 24 of the Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 specifically provides that an employee who has rendered military service before appointment in the Bank shall continue to draw the military pension, if any, and military service rendered by him shall not count as qualifying service for pension. Moreover this point was not urged at the time of the hearing of the matter. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, vehemently urged that the respondents were estopped to deny the pension to the petitioner. He contended that an assurance was held out to the petitioner by the officials of the respondent- Bank that he having put in more than 15 years of service would be entitled to pension. The contention is not supported by any material on record. He contended that an assurance was held out to the petitioner by the officials of the respondent- Bank that he having put in more than 15 years of service would be entitled to pension. The contention is not supported by any material on record. The only document on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel is a communication dated 12.7.2001 (Annexure P-6) addressed by the Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Kangra Branch to the Chief Manager, Pension Section, State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, Patiala forwarding therewith a representation of the petitioner and pointing out therein that the petitioner had not been granted any pension on his retirement, though he had put in 19 years and 10 months of service. This communication was written much after the retirement of the petitioner, and, therefore, from its contents, it cannot be concluded that any assurance was held out to the petitioner, before he applied for and was voluntarily retired under the State Bank of Patiala Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SBPVRS), that he would be granted pension if he sought retirement under the said Scheme. 9. Above stated position apart, there is a communication dated 15.2.2001 written by the petitioner to the Trustees of the Pension Fund of the respondent- Bank. In this communication which is available at page 31 and is relied upon by the petitioner himself, he had requested for arranging the payment of the pension to him through Palampur Branch of the Bank in case he was eligible for the same under the State Bank of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. (Emphasis supplied). This suggests that the petitioner himself was not sure that he will be entitled to pension. 10. The above stated position apart, the plea of estoppel is not tenable even in law. The petitioners own case is that the alleged assurance was held out by the officials of the respondent-Bank. If for argument sake it be assumed that any such assurance was held out, the same was meaningless being contrary to the provision of the State Bank of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 and hence could not have operated as estoppel. Besides this, the petitioner himself relies on these Regulations. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following two judicial precedents in support of his plea of estoppel:— 1. Rajkishore Senapati and others v. Utkal University and another [AIR 1982 ORISSA 188]. 2. Besides this, the petitioner himself relies on these Regulations. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following two judicial precedents in support of his plea of estoppel:— 1. Rajkishore Senapati and others v. Utkal University and another [AIR 1982 ORISSA 188]. 2. Amresh Kumar v. Principal Bhagalpur Medical College, Bhagalpur and another [AIR 1982 PATNA 122]. These precedents are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. 12. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the petitioner is, not entitled to pension under the State Bank of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. 13. Lastly it was urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in case the petitioner was not found entitled to pension, a direction be issued to the respondents to atleast pay the amount of Banks Contribution to Provident Fund. In the petition it has not specifically been pleaded whether the petitioner is entitled to Contributory Provident Fund and if so, under what provision of law. Because of the absence of specific pleadings with regard to this aspect of the matter the respondents had no opportunity to reply qua this aspect of the matter, which was raised for the first time during the course of the hearing of the matter. Consequently while rejecting the prayer for issuance of a specific direction to the respondents to pay the amount of Banks Contribution to the Provident Fund, we only direct the respondents to look into this matter in the light of the Regulations and the instructions, if any, governing the same, provided the petitioner makes a representation within two months from today. In case on examination of his case, the petitioner is found entitled to payment of any amount on this count, to pay the same to him within three months from the date of decision on the representation. Writ petition dismissed.