Supreme Court of India
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusTARA CHAND
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 846
- Decided
- 31 July 2019
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ASHOK BHUSHAN
Holding
An employee who opts for voluntary retirement under the Scheme is not entitled to a pro‑rata pension unless he has rendered at least fifteen years of qualifying service as required by Regulation 28 of the 1995 Pension Regulations.
Summary
The Central Bank of India’s Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001 allowed employees who were over 40 years of age or had 15 years of service to retire voluntarily. Tara Chand, who had 11 years of service and was over 40, opted for voluntary retirement in February 2001, but the Bank denied him a pro‑rata pension. The Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, and subsequently a Division Bench, held that the Scheme’s Clause 6(ii) entitled him to pension as per the 1995 Pension Regulations, and ordered the Bank to pay the pension. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the interplay of Clause 6(ii) with Regulation 14 and the amended Regulation 28, noting that voluntary retirement under the Scheme is not covered by the definition of “retirement” in Regulation 14 and that Regulation 28 requires a minimum of fifteen years of service for pension eligibility. Since the respondent had only eleven years of service, the Court held that he was not eligible for a pro‑rata pension. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgments and dismissed the respondent’s writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether an employee who opts for voluntary retirement under the Central Bank of India Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001, is entitled to a pro‑rata pension under the Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995.
- Whether Regulation 14 or the amended Regulation 28 of the 1995 Pension Regulations governs pension entitlement in cases of voluntary retirement under the Scheme.
- Whether the circular dated 31.01.2001 extends pro‑rata pension benefits to employees who have rendered less than fifteen years of service.
Legislation cited
Subjects
pro‑rata pensionvoluntary retirement schemepension regulationsqualifying serviceemployee benefitsbanking sectorstatutory interpretation
Judgment
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 841 841
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. A
v.
TARA CHAND
(Civil Appeal No. 5898 of 2019)
JULY 31, 2019 B
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Pro-rata pension – Denial of, on opting for voluntary
retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme – Writ petition – Single C
Judge of High Court directed the employer-Bank to extend the benefit
of pro-rata pension in terms of the Scheme r/w. Pension Regulations
– Division Bench of High Court upheld the order of Single Judge –
Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: In view of Clause 6(ii) of Voluntary
Retirement Scheme, payment of pension under the Scheme has to be
D
as per Pension Regulations – As per Regulation 28 of Pension
Regulations, an employee who opted for retirement before
superannuation, would be entitled for pension, after rendering
service for a minimum period of 15 years – Therefore, the
respondent-employee, who had rendered service only for 11 years
was not entitled for pension – Central Bank of India Employees E
Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001 – Clauses 4 and 6(ii) – Central
Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 – Reg.28.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 It is true that as per Clause 4 of Central Bank
of India Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001, any F
employee who has 15 years of service or completed 40 years of
age is eligible to apply for voluntary retirement under the Scheme.
Clause 6(ii) of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which is
relevant provision regarding entitlement of the claim provides
that “Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per G
Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations,
1995……” Thus, payment of pension under the Scheme has to
be as per Pension Regulations, 1995. [Para 9] [847-F-G]
H
841
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A 1.2 Regulation 14 of Pension Regulations provides for
qualifying service for pension. Regulation 14 begins with the
words “subject to the other conditions contained in these
regulations”. Further, an employee who has rendered a minimum
of ten 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
B
for pension. Thus, this qualifying service is relevant when a person
has completed 10 years of service on the date of his retirement.
The retirement has been defined in definition Clause 2(y).
Voluntary retirement in the case of respondent is not retirement
which is covered within the definition of Clause 2(y) on strict
C interpretation of definition clause. Furthermore, it is clear from
the opening words of Regulation 14 that the said qualifying service
is “subject to the other conditions contained in Regulations”.
[Paras 10, 11] [848-B-C; E-F]
1.3 Chapter V of the Pension Regulations deals with
D classes of pension. Classes of pension specifically defined in
Chapter V and in a sense retirement under Voluntary Retirement
Scheme was not contemplated when the Regulations were made
in 1995. Regulation 28 was amended in the year 2002 w.e.f.
01.09.2000 whereby an employee who opts for retirement before
superannuation, but after rendering service for a minimum period
E of 15 years was also entitled for pension. The respondent is not
covered by proviso to Regulation 28. As per Clause 6(ii) of the
Voluntary Retirement Scheme, entitlement being on the basis of
Pension Regulations, the respondent shall be entitled only for
pension if he falls in any of the classes of pension in Chapter V.
F Proviso to Regulation 28 although was amended w.e.f. 01.09.2000
but it was clarified by circular dated 31.01.2001 that the employees,
who opted for pension but completed minimum 15 years of service
and opt for voluntary retirement under this scheme would also
be eligible for pro-rata pension. [Para 11] [848-F-H]
G 2. The High Court has not correctly interpreted the Scheme
and the Regulations. when the Court has to examine
interpretation of a statutory Regulation, Scheme and the benefits
to be extended to the employees, statutory regime in the Scheme
H
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. v. TARA CHAND 843
has to be adhered to and with regard to the case of one individual, A
no exception can be made. Therefore, it cannot be said that this
Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment since the
respondent is waiting for the last 18 years to receive pension.
[Para 20] [854-D-E]
Bank of Baroda and others v. Ganpat Singh Deora, B
(2009) 3 SCC 217 : [2008] 17 SCR 1151 – relied on.
Bank of India and another v. K. Mohandas and others
(2009) 5 SCC 313 : [2009] 5 SCR 118 ; Punjab
National Bank and others v. Ram Kishan (2014) 13 SCC
485 ; Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank and C
another v. Dharam Pal Singh (2014) 13 SCC 484 ;
National Insurance Company Limited and another v.
Kirpal Singh (2014) 5 SCC 189 : [2014] 1 SCR 380
– referred to.
Case Law Reference D
[2009] 5 SCR 118 referred to Para 16
(2014) 13 SCC 485 referred to Para 15
(2014) 13 SCC 484 referred to Para 15
[2014] 1 SCR 380 referred to Para 19 E
[2008] 17 SCR 1151 relied on Para 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5898
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2017 of the Division F
Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B.
Special Appeal (Writ) No. 817 of 2015.
Debal Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Ashish Wad, Mrs. Jayashree Wad,
Sidharth Mahajan, Ms. Sukriti Jaggi and M/s. J. S. Wad and Co., Advs.
for the Appellants. G
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Harsha Vinoy, Shailja Nanda Mishra,
Satendra Kumar and Irshad Ahmad, Advs. for the Respondent.
H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the Central Bank of India
challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High
Court dated 09.03.2017 in the DB Civil Special Appeal No.817 of 2015
B dismissing the Special Appeal filed by the appellants. The Special Appeal
was filed by the appellants against the judgment of the learned Single
Judge dated 28.04.2015 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent
quashing the order of the Bank dated 12.09.2001 denying to grant pro-
rata pension upon opting for voluntary retirement under the Central Bank
C of India Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001.
2. Necessary facts for deciding this appeal are:
On 26.10.1995 Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension
Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations, 1995) came
into force. The respondent-Tara Chand opted for the pension scheme.
D The respondent’s option for pension scheme was accepted by the Bank.
A Scheme for voluntary retirement, namely, Central Bank of India
Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001(hereinafter referred to
as “Scheme, 2001”) was framed which was made effective from
22.02.2001 to 08.03.2001. Prior to the Scheme being made effective a
E circular dated 31.01.2001 was issued by the Bank by which several
clarifications were issued for smooth implementation of the Scheme.
The respondent submitted an application for voluntary retirement on
23.02.2001. The application for voluntary retirement of respondent was
accepted by the Bank by order dated 26.03.2001. By order dated
12.09.2001, the Bank refused to grant pro-rata pension to the respondent
F No.1, who had opted for the voluntary retirement under the Scheme,
2001. A S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4342 of 2001 was filed by the
respondent praying for quashing the order dated 12.09.2001 and praying
for a direction to the Bank to extend pensionary benefits to the respondent
upon his retirement with effect from 01.04.2001. The learned Single
G Judge after considering the Regulations, 1995 and the Scheme, 2001
took the view that Clause 6(ii) of the Scheme, 2001 entitled the respondent
to pension as per Pension Regulations, 1995. The writ petition was
allowed and the order dated 12.06.2001 was set aside with direction to
the Bank to extend benefits of pro-rata/proportionate pension to the
respondent to the extent of his entitlement in terms of the Scheme, 2001
H
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. v. TARA CHAND 845
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
read with Regulations, 1995. The Bank aggrieved by the judgment of A
the learned Single Judge filed Special Appeal, which too had been
dismissed by the Division Bench. The Division Bench took the view that
the respondent who was above 40 years of age and had completed 11
years of service in the Bank was definitely entitled to opt for voluntary
retirement and simultaneously claim pension under the Scheme. The
B
Division Bench took the view that Clause 6(ii) of the Scheme, 2001
entitles the respondent to pension. The Division Bench placed reliance
on the judgment of this Court in Bank of India and another Vs. K.
Mohandas and others, (2009) 5 SCC 313. Aggrieved against the
judgment of the High Court, the Bank has come up in this appeal.
3. Shri Debal Banerjee, learned senior counsel, appearing for the C
appellant contended that as per Clause 6(ii) of the Scheme, 2001, an
employee seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme, 2001 will be
eligible for pension only as per Regulations, 1995. It is submitted that
eligibility to apply under the Scheme, 2001 does not ipso facto entitle an
employee to receive pension. An employee is entitled for pension as per D
Regulations, 1995. He submits that as per Regulation 28 w.e.f.
01.09.2000, an employee is entitled for pension who opts to retire before
attaining the age of superannuation, but after rendering service for a
minimum period of 15 years in terms of any Scheme. He submits that
the respondent having not rendered 15 years of service is not entitled for
the pension and the Bank has rightly rejected it. Shri Banerjee further E
relied on the judgment of this Court in Bank of Baroda and others vs.
Ganpat Singh Deora, (2009) 3 SCC 217, Pubjab National Bank
and others vs. Ram Kishan, (2014) 13 SCC 485 and Regional
Manager, Punjab National Bank and another vs. Dharam Pal Singh,
(2014) 13 SCC 484. F
4. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel, appearing for the
respondent refuting the submissions of the appellant contends that the
respondent was clearly entitled for pension and the High Court has
committed no error in allowing the claim of pension of the respondent. It
is submitted that as per Clause 4 of the Scheme, an employee who has G
completed 15 years of service in the Bank or 40 years of age will be
eligible to seek voluntary retirement under the Scheme and is eligible for
pension. The respondent having completed 40 years of age was clearly
eligible. He further submits that as per Regulation 14 of Regulations,
1995, an employee who has rendered a minimum of 10 years of service
H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A in the Bank on the date of the retirement or the date on which he is
deemed to have retired shall qualify for pension. The respondent having
rendered 11 years of service was clearly eligible for pension.
5. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the respondent has placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in Bank of India and another
B Vs. K. Mohandas and others, (2009) 5 SCC 313 and National
Insurance Company Limited and another vs. Kirpal Singh, (2014)5
SCC 189. Dr. Singhvi further submits that the present is a case where
the respondent applied for pension in the year 2001 and for the last 18
years he is waiting for pension. Hence, present is a case where this
Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.
C
6. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused
the records.
7. We may first notice the relevant provisions of the Scheme,
2001. Clause 4 deals with the eligibility to the following effect:
D “4. ELIGIBILITY:-
4.1 All permanent employees of the Bank will be eligible to seek
voluntary retirement under the scheme provided they
meet the following eligibility criteria as on the date of
application: -
E
a) they have completed 15 years of service in the Bank
OR
b) 40 years of age.
4.2 However, the employees falling in the following categories
F are not eligible to seek voluntary retirement under the
scheme:-
a) All existing Specialists Officers;
b) Officers/employees who have executed service bonds
G and have not completed it;
c) Employees serving abroad under special arrangements
bonds;
d) Employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are
contemplated/pending or who are under suspension;
H
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. v. TARA CHAND 847
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
e) Employees appointed on contract basis; A
f) Any other category of employees as may be specified
by the management.”
8. Clause 6 deals with the other benefits, which is to the following
effect:
B
“6. OTHER BENEFITS:-
An employee seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme will
be eligible for the following benefits in addition to the ex-gratia
amount mentioned in Clause 5 above of this Scheme:-
i) Gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or Gratuity C
payable under the Service Rules as the case may be, as per
existing rules;
ii) a) Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per
Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations
1995 (in case of those who have opted for Pension and D
otherwise eligible for the same)
OR
b) Bank’s contribution towards PF as per existing rules (in
respect of employees opted to PF)
E
iii) Leave encashment as per existing rules.”
9. It is true that as per Clause 4 any employee who has 15 years
of service or completed 40 years of age is eligible to apply for voluntary
retirement under the Scheme. There is no dispute that the respondent
was eligible to apply for voluntary retirement, other benefits under the F
Scheme have been extended to the respondent and only limited issue in
the present appeal is entitlement of the respondent for pension. Clause
6(ii), which is relevant provision regarding entitlement of the claim provides
that “Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per Central Bank
of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995……” Thus, payment
of pension under the Scheme has to be as per Pension Regulations, G
1995. Thus, we have to refer to the Pension Regulations to find out the
entitlement of the respondent. Regulation 14 which is relied by the learned
counsel for respondent provides as follows:
H
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A “Regulation 14.Qualifying Service - Subject to the other
conditions contained in these regulations, an employee who has
rendered a minimum of ten 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.”
B 10. Regulation 14 begins with the words “subject to the other
conditions contained in these regulations”. Further, an employee who
has rendered a minimum of ten 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. Thus, this qualifying service is relevant when a person
has completed 10 years of service on the date of his retirement. The
C retirement has been defined in definition Clause 2(y), which is to the
following effect:
“”Retirement” means cessation from Bank’s service
(a) on attaining the age of superannuation specified in
D Service Regulations or Settlements;
(b) on voluntary retirement in accordance with provisions
contained in Regulation 29 of these regulations;
(c) on premature retirement by the Bank before attaining
the age of superannuation specified in Service Regulations
E or Settlement;
11. Voluntary retirement in the case of respondent is not retirement
which is covered within the definition of Clause 2(y) on strict interpretation
of definition clause. Furthermore, as clear from the opening words, the
said qualifying service is “subject to the other conditions contained in
F Regulations”. Chapter V of the Regulations, 1995 deals with classes of
pension. Different classes of pension include superannuation pension,
pension on voluntary retirement, invalid pension, compassionate
allowance, premature retirement pension and compulsory retirement
pension. Classes of pension specifically defined in Chapter V and in a
sense retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme was not
G
contemplated when the Regulations were made in 1995. Regulation 28
was amended in the year 2002 w.e.f. 01.09.2000 whereby an employee
who opts for retirement before superannuation, but after rendering service
for a minimum period of 15 years was also entitled for pension. The
respondent is not covered by proviso to Regulation 28. As noted above,
H
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. v. TARA CHAND 849
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
as per Clause 6(ii) of the Scheme 2001 entitlement being on the basis of A
Pension Regulations, 1995, the respondent shall be entitled only for
pension if he falls in any of the classes of pension in Chapter V. We may
notice that proviso to Regulation 28 although was amended w.e.f.
01.09.2000 but it was clarified by Circular dated 31.01.2001 that the
employees, who opted for pension but completed minimum 15 years of
B
service and opt for voluntary retirement under this Scheme would also
be eligible for pro-rata pension. Para 2(A)(2.5) is relevant which is quoted
below:
“2.5 In terms of Clause 6 of the Scheme, an employee seeking
voluntary retirement under this Scheme will, in addition
to the ex-gratia amount to the extent stated therein, be C
eligible for gratuity as per existing Act/Rules, as the case
may be, and pension (including commuted value of
pension) as per Pension Regulations (in case of those
who opted for pension and otherwise eligible for the
same) or Banks’ contribution towards PF (in respect of D
employees opted to PF), Leave encashment as per
existing rules.
In this context, it is clarified that in terms of the proposed
amendments to Pension Regulations, the employees who
opted for pension but completed minimum 15 years of E
service and opt for voluntary retirement under this
Scheme would also be eligible for pro-rata pension for
the period of service rendered as if they are to retire on
attaining the age of superannuation. In other words, such
employees are not eligible for the addition of 5 years
notional weightage which is otherwise available to other F
pension optees retired voluntarily under Regulation 29
of Pension Regulations. This provision is applicable
pending adoption of the amendment to Regulation 28 of
Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension
Regulations, 1995, through due process.” G
12. Now, we come to the judgment of this Court relied by the
learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has
relied on the judgment of this Court in Bank of Baroda and others vs.
Ganpat Singh Deora (supra) where this Court had occasion to consider
H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A Bank of Baroda (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 and Bank of
Baroda Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001. In the above
case, the respondent -employee had rendered only 13 years of service
and having completed 40 years of age was eligible under the Scheme,
2001. Paragraph 4 of the judgment gives the facts. Regulation 28 of
Regulations, 1995 is pari materia to the amended Regulation 28 of
B
Regulations, 1995. Paragraph 8 contains amended Regulation 28, which
is to the following effect:
“8. The said amended Regulation 28 was published in the Gazette
of India on 2-1-2004 and provides as follows:
C “28. Superannuation Pension.- Super-annuation Pension shall
be granted to an employee who has retired on his attaining the
age of Superannuation specified in the Service Regulations or
settlements:
Provided that, with effect from 1-9-2000 pension shall also be
D granted to an employee who opts to retire before attaining the
age of superannuation, but after rendering service for a minimum
period of 15 years in terms of any scheme that may be framed for
such purpose by the Board with the approval of the Government.”
13. Regulation 29 of Bank of Baroda Regulations provided for
E pension on voluntary retirement. The similar argument was raised in the
above case on behalf of the employee which has been noted in paragraph
22 of the judgment, which is to the following effect:
“22. Mr. Agarwala’s submissions were strongly opposed by Ms.
Aishwarya Bhati, learned advocate appearing for the respondent.
F She emphatically contended that in a case involving voluntary
retirement Regulation 29 would not apply and that, in fact,
Regulation 14 would be relevant. Ms. Bhati urged that Regulation
29 of the Pension Regulations dealt not with voluntary retirement
under a Scheme but with cases of premature retirement which
would be quite clear from the wording thereof. Ms. Bhati urged
G that Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 29 provides for a situation
where an employee wishes to retire from service even in the
absence of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The Regulation
contemplates that in such a case the employee is not only required
to complete 15 years of service but is also required to give notice
H
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. v. TARA CHAND 851
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
of not less than 3 months in writing to the Appointing Authority, A
and, thereafter, retire from service.”
14. In paragraphs 28 to 33, this Court dealing with Regulations as
well as Scheme laid down following:
“28. However, we are inclined to agree with Ms. Bhati that
Regulation 29 does not contemplate voluntary retirement under B
the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and applies only to such
employees who themselves wish to retire de hors any Scheme of
Voluntary Retirement, after having completed 15 years of
qualifying service for the said purpose. There is a distinct difference
between the two situations and Regulation 29 would not cover C
the case of an employee opting to retire on the basis of a Voluntary
Retirement Scheme.
29. Furthermore, Regulation 2 of the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme, 2001, of the appellant-Bank merely prescribes a period
of qualifying service for an employee to be eligible to apply for D
voluntary retirement.
30. On the other hand, Regulations 14 and 29 of the Pension
Regulations, 1995, relate to the period of qualifying service for
pension under the said Regulations, in two different situations.
While Regulation 14 provides that in order to be eligible for pension E
an employee would have to render a minimum of 10 years’ service,
Regulation 29 is applicable to the employees choosing to retire
from service pre-maturely, and in their case the period of qualifying
service would be 15 years.
31. The facts of this case, however, do not attract the provisions F
of Regulation 29 since the respondent accepted the offer of
voluntary retirement under the Scheme framed by the Bank and
not on his own volition de hors any Scheme of Voluntary
Retirement. In such a case, Regulation 14 read with Regulation
32 providing for premature retirement would not also apply to the
case of the respondent. While Regulation 2 of the BOBEVRS- G
2001 speaks of eligibility for applying under the Scheme, Regulation
14 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, contemplates a situation
whereunder an employee would be eligible for premature pension.
The two provisions are for two different purposes and for two
H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A different situations. However, Regulation 28 of the Pension
Regulations, 1995, after amendment made provision for situations
similar to the one in the instant case.
32. In the absence of any particular provision for payment of
pension to those who opted for BOBEVRS-2001 other than
B Regulation 11(ii) of the Scheme, we are once again left to fall
back on the Pension Regulations, 1995, and the amended provisions
of Regulation 28 which brings within the scope of Superannuation
Pension employees who opted for the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme, which will be clear from the Explanatory Memorandum.
However, the period of qualifying service has been retained as 15
C years for those opting for BOBEVRS-2001 and is treated
differently from premature retirement where the minimum period
of qualifying service has been fixed at 10 years in keeping with
Regulation 14 of the Pension Regulations, 1995.
33. We are, therefore, of the view that not having completed the
D required length of qualifying service as provided under Regulation
28 of the 1995 Regulations, the respondent was not eligible for
pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995, of the appellant
Bank.”
15. The above judgment was subsequently followed in Regional
E Manager, Punjab National Bank and another vs. Dharam Pal Singh
and Punjab National Bank and others vs. Ram Kishan (supra).
16. The judgment on which much reliance has been placed by the
learned counsel for the respondent is Bank of India and another vs.
K. Mohandas and others (supra). The issue arose for consideration
F in the above case has been noticed in paragraph 24 of the judgment,
which is to the following effect:
“24. The principal question that falls for our determination is:
whether the employees (having completed 20 years of service)
of these banks (Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Punjab &
G Sind Bank, Union Bank of India and United Bank of India) who
had opted for voluntary retirement under VRS 2000 are entitled
to addition of five years of notional service in calculating the length
of service for the purpose of the said Scheme as per Regulation
29(5) of Pension Regulations, 1995?”
H
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. v. TARA CHAND 853
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
17. In the above case, the Scheme was noted as VRS 2000. Under A
the aforesaid Scheme eligibility was to employee who had rendered
minimum of 15 years of service or completed 40 years of age. In the
above case, the judgment of this Court in Bank of Baroda and others
vs. Ganpat Singh Deora (supra) was relied by the Bank, which
judgment was noticed and this Court laid down following in paragraphs
B
61 and 63:
“61. The observations made by this Court in Bank of Baroda
(2009 (3) SCC 217) which have been quoted above and relied
upon by the banks in support of their contention have to be
understood in the factual backdrop namely, that the employee had
completed only 13 years of service and, was not eligible for the C
pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995 and for the benefit
of addition of five years to qualifying service under Regulation
29(5), an employee must have completed 20 years of service.
The question therein was not identical in form with the question
here to be decided. D
63. The decision of this Court in Bank of Baroda is, thus, clearly
distinguishable as the employee therein had not completed
qualifying service much less 20 years of service for being eligible
to the weightage under Regulation 29(5) and cannot be applied to
the present controversy nor does that matter decide the question E
here to be decided in the present group of matters.”
18. The judgment of Bank of Baroda and others vs. Ganpat
Singh Deora (supra) was not departed with but distinguished on the
facts. The judgment in Bank of India and another vs. K. Mohandas
and others (supra) is clearly distinguishable and is not attracted. F
19. Dr. Singhvi has placed much reliance on the judgment of this
Court in National Insurance Company Limited and another vs.
Kirpal Singh, (2014) 5 SCC 189. In the above case, this Court had
occasion to consider the SVRS Scheme, 2004. Under the General
Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the eligibility of the G
Scheme was confined to those employees who have attained the age of
40 years and completed 10 years of qualifying service as on the date of
notification. Clause 6 of Scheme, 2004 sub-clause 1(c) provided that
pension shall be payable as per the General Insurance (Employees’)
Pension Scheme, 1995. The Scheme, which was considered in the above
H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.
A case in Bank of Baroda(supra), is pari materia to the Scheme of the
Central Bank of India, 2001. We feel ourselves bound by judgment of
this Court in Bank of Baroda vs. Ganpat Singh Deora (supra), which
judgment is directly on the similar Regulations and the Scheme. There
being two Judge Bench judgment on the similar Regulations and Scheme,
we are not inclined to accede to the request of the learned counsel for
B
the respondent that the matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench to
consider the Bank of Baroda vs. Ganpat Singh Deora and National
Insurance vs. Kirpal Singh. The judgment of two Judge Bench in
National Insurance vs. Kirpal Singh (supra) being on different
Regulations and Scheme, we rest our judgment following two Judge
C Bench judgment of this Court in Bank of Baroda vs Ganpat Singh
Deora (supra).
20. In view of what we have said above, we are of the view that
the High Court has not correctly interpreted the Scheme and the
Regulations. On the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent
D in the facts of the present case that this Court may not interfere with the
impugned judgment since the respondent is waiting for the last 18 years
to receive pension, we are of the view that when the Court has to examine
interpretation of a statutory Regulation, Scheme and the benefits to be
extended to the employees, statutory regime in the Scheme has to be
adhered to and with regard to the case of one individual, no exception
E can be made. We, thus, do not accept the above submission of the learned
counsel for the respondent.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this appeal is allowed,
judgments of the High Court are set aside and the writ petition filed by
the respondent is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
F
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "pro‑rata pension"Sign in to search