S. Jafar Raza vs U.P. State Public Service Tribunal and Another

Sunil Ambwani and Raj Mani Chauhan, JJ.—Heard Shri Narendra Mohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Ratan appears for the respondent-bank.

Shri S. Jafar Raza, the petitioner joined services of the bank as clerk on 6.3.1961. He was transferred to various places and last worked at main branch of Allahabad as an officer. The petitioner opted for voluntary retirement on medical grounds after completing 29 years with benefit of employment of his son in the bank. The bank allowed him to retire peremptorily on 31.1.1990 with an offer of employment to his son.

the bank after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with previous sanction of the Central Government framed regulations called ''Union Bank of India (Employees)Pension. Regulations, 1995 giving option to the employees, who have retired from service between 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1993, for a pension scheme, after surrendering the employers contribution in the provident fund to the bank. The petitioner exercised the option and offered to surrender the employer''s contribution of the provident fund received by him. His option vide letter dated 8.5.2006 addressed to the Chairman and Managing Director of the bank was rejected by the Deputy General Manager (HRM) on June 8th, 2006 on the ground that the regulations applied to the employees, who were in service of the bank between 1.1.1986 but had retired (on superannuation) before the first day of November, 1993 and had exercised an option in writing within 120 days from the notified date would become member of the fund. The order further states that the record would show that the petitioner had retired prematurely on medical grounds on 31.1.1990, and thus the regulations do not apply to him.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order and to finalise and process of pension under Regulations of 1995 within a time frame.

During the pendency of the writ petition an identical matter in which the High Court had granted relief of pension was considered and decided by the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India Vs. Venkatesh Gopal Mahishi and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5503 of 2003 decided on 12.1.2007. The Supreme Court disagreeing with the High Court held that those employees, who had taken voluntary retirement on medical grounds with benefit of appointment of their dependent as awardee employees are not entitled to the benefit of Pension Regulations, 1995. There is no arbitrariness or illegality in fixing cut off date in the grant of pension and to those employees, who have superannuated from the bank. The Supreme Court held:

We find from the reading of the counter affidavit of the appellant-bank that several writ petitions were filed before the Karnataka High Court and Bombay High Court in regard to the benefits of the Pension Regulations. The matters were later on carried to this Court by the Indian Banks'' Association and the concerned Banks in Special Leave Petitions. The Special Leave Petitions were finally decided by this Court by an order dated 5.4.2000 in favour of the voluntarily retired officers of the concerned Banks. The benefits of pension were granted to those officers of the Bank who had voluntarily retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.11.1993 as per the judgment of this Court. It appears that the appellant-bank thereafter received a number of representations from its employees, both : officers as well as the award staff including the respondent No. 1. claiming to be treated as pension optees and be given the benefits of pension having voluntarily retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.11.1993 under the non-statutory scheme.

The appellant-bank wrote a letter dated 9*11.2000 to the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Banking Division, seeking clarification of the claims of those officers who had voluntarily retired during the period between 1.1.1986 and 31.10.1993 on medical grounds and sought appointment of dependents on compassionate grounds as well, as per the Bank''s own scheme. In response to the said communication, the Director (IR), Government of India. Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division, IR Section, vide letter dated 17.5.2001 informed the appellant-bunk that the officers; who had retired with simultaneous appointment of the dependents on compassionate grounds, will constitute a separate class and hence cannot be extended the benefit of exercising option for pension as has been granted to the incumbents who had voluntarily retired under the scheme formulated by the Bank under Regulation 19 (1) of the Officers'' Service Regulations. 1

The appellant-bank again sought clarification from the Indian Bank''s Association on the subject in issue. The Indian Banks'' Association vide its letter No. PD/GSN/UNION/G2/814 dated 1.10.2001 advised the appellant-bank as under:

Voluntary retirement as a concept and as a form of retirement was not available to award staff under the Bipartite Settlement prior to the introduction of the Pension Scheme. Even after introduction of the Pension Scheme, it is only those who have opted for pension who can retire voluntarily, under Regulation 29 of Bank Employees'' Pension Regulations, 1995.

The decision of the Government of India, as conveyed to the Bank in case of officer, will equally hold good in the case of workmen also.

As noticed earlier, the respondent No. 1 submitted an application dated 19.2.1991 to the Chief Manager of the appellant-bank making request for voluntary retirement on medical grounds and appointment of his son on compassionate grounds. His application was dealt with and considered under non-statutory scheme, known as Scheme for ''Appointment of Dependents of Employees Retiring Voluntarily on Medical Grounds''.

Having" gone through the judgment of the High Court impugned in this appeal, we find that the High Court has allowed the writ petition of the respondent No. 1 simply relying upon the decision of the learned Single Judge in Madav Kirtikar (supra) in which the learned Single Judge found the officers of the bank who had voluntarily retired between 1.1.1986 and 31.10.1993 eligible for pension, irrespective of their retirement on attaining [the age of superannuation or under the scheme of voluntary retirement. The High Court has not given any finding on the fundamental issue whether the claim of the respondent No. 1, who, admittedly, was an award staff at the time of retirement on medical grounds in the year 1993, is covered under the Pension Regulations 1995 or not. In our view, the decision of the learned Single Judge in Madav Kirtikar (supra), as relied upon by the Division Bench in its impugned order, is not of any help or assistance either on facts or on law to the case of the respondent No. 1. In that case, the employer of the bank was an officer who sought voluntary retirement under the provisions of the Officers'' Service Regulation governing the terms and conditions of voluntary retirement under the scheme in the normal circumstances and not on medical ground. Secondly, in that case there was no question of appointment of dependent of the retiree on compassionate ground.

In the normal course, we could have remitted the case back to the High Court for recording decision on the fundamental issue raised by the appellant-bank in relation to the entitlement of pension to the respondent No. 1 who had retired as an award staff, but looking to the time-gap between the date of retirement of respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 1.11.1993 and pendency of the writ petition in the High Court and Civil Appeal in this Court and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, we propose to deal with and decide this fundamental issue in this appeal.

The appellant-bank in its affidavit filed before the High Court has categorically stated and pleaded that as per the advise of the Director (IR), Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division, IR Section, the benefit of exercising option for pension cannot be extended to the employees who had retired on medical grounds with simultaneous appointment of the dependents on compassionate grounds. The Indian Banks'' Association also advised the appellant-bank that the concept of voluntary retirement for the purpose of receiving pension on voluntary retirement under Regulation 29 is not available to the award staff. The respondent No. 1 has not dented his status as an award staff when he sought retirement on medical grounds. Thus, the respondent No. 1 cannot lake the benefit of the letter dated 20.9.1993 received by him from the Chief Manager of the appellant-bank, treating him as voluntarily retiree from the service of the bank w.e.f. 1.11.1993 under the pension Regulations as nomenclature of the words ''voluntarily retired'' used in the said letter will not change the status of the respondent No. 1 from award staff to any other category of the employee of the appellant-bank. Thus, Regulation 29, upon which reliance is placed by the respondent No. 1, is not attracted in his case and his claim for pension is not covered thereunder. This Court in its order dated 3.12.2001 titled as Union of India v. B.M.

Ramachandra Rao and Ors. observed as under:

Leaving the question of law open, inasmuch as connected appeals (C.A. Nos. 6959 of 1997 and batch) have hern dismissed, we see no reason to interfere. The appeals are dismissed. No costs.

It becomes clear from the reading'' of the above extracted order that the question of law, i.e. imposition of the cut-off dale for the grant of benefits of pension to the employees of the banks who have voluntarily retired between 1.1.1986 and 31.10.1993, was left open.

This Court in Bank of India v. Indu Rajagopalan and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 6959 of 1997 and batch, which were the subject matter in Civil Appeal Nos. 1177-1411 of 2000 before this Court in Union of India v. B.M. Ramachandra Rao and Ors. did not consider it necessary to go into the arbitrariness, validity or illegality of fixation of the cut-off date for the grant of pension to those employees who had retired between 1.1.1986 and 31.10.1993. In this case, this Court simply observed "the number of employees who have retired in this manner and financial implications being small, no interference was called for in the teeth of the Bank (Employees'') Pension Regulations, 1995, Regulations 2 (y), 29, 2 (t), 2 (u), 3 and 5.

As we have held that the respondent No. 1, having retired as award staff, is not entitled to the grant of pension under the Pension Regulations 1995, we do not consider it necessary and expedient to go into the other above-mentioned points raised by the learned Counsel for the parties.

In the result, for the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. The impugned judgment dated 2.4.2002 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowing the Writ Petition No. 567 of 2002 filed by the respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside and the writ petition shall stand dismissed.

The parties are left to bear their own costs.

The judgment of the Supreme Court squarely covers the issue raised in this writ petition.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.