U.C.O. Bank and Others vs Sanwar Mal

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The plaintiff respondent''s claim for pension having been upheld by both the Courts, the Bank has filed this second appeal. A few facts :--

The plaintiff-respondent had joined service as a Peon with the UCO Bank on December 29, 1959. In the year 1980 he was promoted to the post of Clerk. In February 1988 he requested the Bank to relieve him of his duties so as to enable him to start his own work. On March 24, 1988 the respondent was relieved from the service of the Bank.

On May 27, 1994, the Bank circulated a letter regarding the implementation of the pension scheme, it was stated that this scheme shall be applicable to the employees who have retired on or after January 1, 1986 and before November 1, 1993. The employees had to exercise "irrevocable option" within four months. They were required to refund the Bank''s entire contribution to'' Provident Fund including interest received thereon along with simple interest of 6% per annum from the date of withdrawal till the date of refund. On September 29, 1995 the Bank framed Regulations called the UCO Bank (Employees) Pension'' Regulations, 1995. These Regulations were inter-alia made applicable to employees who were in the service of the Bank on or after the 1st day of January 1986 but had retired before the 1st day of November 1993. By Regulation ''5'' it was provided that "the Bank shall constitute a Fund to be called the UCO Bank (Employees'') Pension Fund". There was also provision for the constitution of a Board of Trustees. Regulation ''14'' provided that "subject to the other conditions contained in these, regulations, an employee who has rendered a minimum often years of service in the Bank on the date of his retirement or the date on which he is deemed to have retired shall qualify for pension". Under the Regulations, even the service on probation and the period during which an employee remained on leave was also countable towards the qualifying service. Regulation ''22'' inter-alia 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 service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits".

It appears that in response to the Circular of May 27, 1994 the plaintiff-respondent gave his option for the grant of benefit under the pension scheme. However, the papers were returned in original vide letter dated October 17, 1994 on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent having resigned cannot be said to have retired. Thus, he was not qualified, for the grant of pension. Faced with this situation, the respondent had filed a suit for a declaration that he was entitled to the pension. He had also prayed for the issued of a mandatory injunction directing the Bank to make the payment of all the arrears along with interest.

The suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed by the trial Court. The appeal filed by the Bank having been dismissed, it has filed the present second appeal.

Mr. Surya Kant, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that in view of the provisions of Regulation ''22'' of the 1995 Regulations as referred to above, the plaintiff-respondent is not entitled to the grant of any pension as he had actually resigned from the job of the Bank and had not retired.

Admittedly, the respondent had submitted his letter of resignation on February 25, 1988. He had done so with the sole purpose of "starting his own work". He was not under any cloud. There were no allegations or charge sheet pending against him. Even his explanation had not been called. Still further, it is the admitted position that in the year 1988, the pension scheme or the statutory regulations had not been finalised or notified. However, in the year 1994 the Bank had prepared a scheme for the grant of pension to the employees who were in service on January 1, 1986 but had retired before November 1, 1993. It is also the admitted position that the respondent had actually served the Bank for more than 28 years and that there was no blemish on his entire record. It is in this situation that the claim of the Bank with regard to the admissibility of pension to the respondent has to be considered.

Iris true that there is a distinction between resignation and retirement. However, in the context of the present situation where the purpose of pension is to reward an employee for the past satisfactory service rendered by him, there appears to be no rationale for denying the benefit to the respondent. The situation could be different if he was under a cloud. Supposing there was a charge sheet pending against him and the respondent had resigned from service, the Bank could have legitimately agitated that he has resigned to run away to avoid the imposition of a penalty. Such was not the situation. He had resigned at a time when the pension scheme did not exist. The scheme was introduced only in the year 1995 when the statutory regulations were notified. In this situation, there appears to be no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below.

Mr. Surya Kant submits that the respondent had not challenged the vires of the regulations. That being so, he was not entitled to the benefit. The plea is untenable. The date on which the plaintiff-respondent had approached the Court, no statutory regulations had come into existence. Admittedly, the regulations had been notified on September 29, 1995. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the year 1994. In fact, learned counsel states that the suit was filed in November 1994. On that date the regulations did not exist. The occasion for the plaintiff-respondent to challenge the vires was not there.

No other point has been raised.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no equity in favour of the Bank so as to call for any interference with the orders of the Courts below.

Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. However, there shall be no order as to costs.