State Bank of Patiala Vs. Pritam Singh Bedi & Ors.
State Bank of Patiala Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 - State Bank of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 - Regulation 18 - Pension on Voluntary Retirement - If broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year - Employees
completed more than 19 years and 6 months of service in the Bank are to
be treated to have completed 20 years of service and entitled to the benefit of Pension on Voluntary Retirement.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA) AND (V. GOPALA GOWDA) JJ.
JULY 07 2014
CIVIL APPEAL No.172 OF 2010
STATE OF BANK OF PATIALA … APPELLANT
VERSUS
PRITAM SINGH BEDI & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
All these appeals
have been preferred by the State Bank of Patiala (hereinafter referred
to as “Bank”)against different judgments and orders passed by Punjab and
Haryana High Court at Chandigarh but since common issues were involved
they were heard together and disposed of by the impugned common
judgment.
2. A number of
employees who were allowed to retire from the Bank pursuant to scheme
called State Bank of Patiala Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000(herein
after referred to as the “Scheme”) introduced by Circular dated 20th
January, 2001, and had completed more than 19 and ½ years of service, in
whose favour pension was not released by the Bank in accordance with
the State Bank of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995
(hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations, 1995”). They moved before
the High Court for direction to the Bank and its authorities to release
pension in their favour in accordance with the Scheme. By one of the
judgments dated 22nd October, 2008, learned Single Judge of the High
Court allowed the writ petitions preferred by some of the aggrieved
employees (respondents) in C.A. No.172 of 2010 and directed to pay
pension in their favour. Against the said order the Bank preferred LPA
No.312 of 2008 before the Division Bench, which by the impugned judgment
dated 9th January, 2009 dismissed the LPA and affirmed the order passed
by the learned Single Judge. The said impugned judgment dated 9th
January, 2009 passed in LPA No.312 of 2008 is under challenge in
C.A.No.172 of 2010. Some other similarly situated employees who had
completed more than 19 and ½ years of service and retired persons to
Voluntary Retirement Scheme also preferred similar writ petitions which
were allowed. Against the respective judgments Bank filed different LPAs
which were also dismissed by different orders in view of the judgment
dated 9th January, 2009. Against the judgments which have followed the
earlier decision, the rest of the civil appeals have been preferred by
the Bank.
3. The High Court
by the impugned judgment referring to earlier Division Bench decision of
the High Court in Dharam Pal Singh v. Punjab National Bank, 2008 (1)
PLR 745 held that the pension was payable under Regulation 28 and that
Regulation 29 will not apply. The Division Bench of the High Court
further held as follows:
“12. A perusal of
the Regulation 28 shows that on attaining the age of superannuation
specified in Regulations or settlements pension is payable. The age of
superannuation has been laid down in Service Regulations which is said
to be 60 years now and earlier it was 58 years. But under the Voluntary
Retirement Scheme, which according to the writ petitioners will be at
par with Settlement, the requirement is 15 years of service or 40 years
of age, which admittedly the writ petitioners had. Under Regulation 32
of the pension is payable on premature retirement on account of orders
of the Bank if the employee was otherwise entitled to
pension/superannuation on that day. Read with Regulations 14 and 28, the
said age is 10 years and if read with the Scheme, it is 15 years of age
or 40 years of service and in either case the employees were covered by
the pension scheme. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Regulation 29
relating to voluntary retirement was not applicable. Thus, contention on
behalf of the Bank that Regulation 29 applied and therefore, pension
payable only after 20 years service cannot be accepted.”
The view taken by the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench and the LPA was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel
for the appellant-Bank referred to Regulations 13, 28,29, 32 and Clause 3
of State Bank of Patiala Voluntary Retirement Scheme and submitted as
follows:
“(a) Regulation 14
which refers to qualifying service is not applicable in view of the
judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of PNB vs. Dharam Pal;
(b) Clause 3 of the
SBP VRS would not apply for pension, as it speaks of eligibility for
applying under the Scheme, particularly, in view of the judgment of this
Hon’ble Court in the case of Bank of India (supra);
(c) Regulation 32
which relates to premature retirement would also not apply as the
retirement of employee was not on the orders of the Bank in public
interest, by way of punishment, further SBP VRS was not by way of a
settlement.
(d) Thus it is only
Regulation 29 “pension on voluntary retirement” which would be
applicable for granting pension, in case of those applying under SBP
VRS.
(e) In case it is
held that SBP VRS is not a voluntary retirement in accordance with
Regulation 29, then it would mean that the respondent employees have not
retired, as per Regulation 2(y), not covered under Pension Regulations
and hence not entitled for pension.”
5. On the other hand, following submissions were made by the learned counsel for the respondents:
i) All the
respondents have completed more than 19 and ½ years of service but less
than 20 years in the Bank, therefore, they are entitled to treat the
broken year as one year under Regulation 18. Therefore, in view of
Regulation 18, the respondents should be treated to have completed 20
years of service.
ii) The respondents
are entitled for pension under Regulation 32 otherwise also the
respondents are entitled to pension even under Regulation 29.
6. Learned counsel
for the appellant-Bank relied on the decisions of this Court in Bank of
Baroda vs. Ganpat Singh Deora, 2009 (3) SCC217and Bank of India vs. K.
Mohandas and others, 2009(5) SCC313 On the other hand, according to the
counsel for the respondents, the present case is different than the
decisions in Bank of Baroda (supra) and Bank of India (supra) as the
respondents are guided by Regulations 18, 28, 29 and 32 of the State
Bank of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 which varies from
the provisions of the other Banks.
7. In the present
case the question arises for consideration is whether under the State
Bank of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 the respondents
are entitled for pension.
8. Similar question
was considered by this Court in Bank of Baroda (supra). In the said
case Bank of Baroda employees were retired pursuant to Bank of Baroda
Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001. However, they had not
completed 20 years of service; therefore, they were denied the benefit
of pension under their Pension Regulations, 1995. In the said case this
Court noticed Regulation 28 of Bank of Baroda Pension Regulations as it
stood prior to the amendment made on 2nd January, 2004 which was as
follows:
“28.Superannuation
pension.—Superannuation pension shall be granted to an employee who has
retired on his attaining the age of superannuation specified in the
Service Regulations or settlements.”
9. This Court also
noticed the amended Regulation 28 in Bank of Baroda(supra) which was
published in the Gazette of India on 2nd January, 2004 and provides as
follows:
“28.Superannuation
pension.—Superannuation 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 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.”
10. Having noticed
the aforesaid provisions and Regulation 29 of the Bank of Baroda Pension
Regulation which is peri materia, similar one, this Court in view of
the fact that the respondents of said Bank had not completed the
required length of qualifying service as provided under Regulation 28 of
Regulations, 1995, held that the respondents were not eligible for
pension under the Pension Regulation, 1995 of the Bank of Baroda.
11. Subsequently,
similar provisions of different Bank fell for consideration before a
Bench of this Court in Bank of India (supra), referring to the scheme
and different provisions which are almost similar to the present one
held as under:
“33. What was, in
respect of pension, the intention of the banks at the time of bringing
out VRS2000 Was it not made expressly clear therein that the employees
seeking voluntary retirement will be eligible for pension as per the
Pension Regulations?. If the intention was not to give pension as
provided in Regulation 29 and particularly sub-regulation (5) thereof,
they could have said so in the Scheme itself. After all much thought had
gone into the formulation of VRS2000and it came to be framed after
great deliberations. The only provision that could have been in mind
while providing for pension as per the Pension Regulations was
Regulation 29. Obviously, the employees, too, had the benefit of
Regulation 29(5) in mind when they offered for voluntary retirement as
admittedly Regulation 28, as was existing at that time, was not
applicable at all. None of Regulations 30 to 34 was attracted.
37. The amendment
to Regulation 28 can, at best, be said to have been intended to cover
the employees with 15 years of service or more but less than 20 years of
service. This intention is reflected from the communication dated
5-9-2000 sent by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance,
[pic].Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) to the Personnel
Advisor, Indian Banks’ Association.
39. Two things
immediately become noticeable from the said communication. One is that
as per Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, an employee can
take voluntary retirement after 20 years of qualifying service and
become eligible for pension. The other thing is that the Scheme provides
that the employees with 15 years of service or 40 years of age shall be
eligible to take voluntary retirement under the Scheme and under
Regulation 29, the employees having rendered 15 years of service or
completed 40 years of age but not completed 20 years of service shall
not be [pic].eligible for pensionary benefits on taking voluntary
retirement under the Scheme.
40. The use of the
words “such employees” in the communication is referable to employees
having rendered 15 years of service but not completed 20 years of
service and, therefore, it was decided to bring an amendment in the
Regulations so that the employees having not completed 20 years’ service
do not lose the benefit of pension. The amendment in Regulation 28, as
is reflected from the afore referred communication, was intended to
cover the employees who had rendered 15 years’ service but not completed
20 years’ service. It was not intended to cover the optees who had
already completed 20 years’ service as the provisions contained in
Regulation 29 met that contingency.
46. The precise
effect of the Pension Regulations, for the purposes of pension, having
been made part of the Scheme, is that the Pension Regulations, to the
extent, these are applicable, must be read into the Scheme. It is
pertinent to bear in mind that interpretation clause of VRS2000states
that the words and expressions used in the Scheme but not defined and
defined in the rules/regulations shall have the same meaning
respectively assigned to them under the rules/regulations. The Scheme
does not define the expression “retirement” or “voluntary retirement”.
We have, therefore, to fall back on the definition of “retirement” given
in Regulation 2(y) whereunder voluntary retirement under Regulation 29
is considered to be retirement. Regulation 29 uses the expression
“voluntary retirement under these Regulations”. Obviously, for the
purposes of the Scheme, it has to be understood to mean with necessary
changes in points of details. Section 23 of the Contract Act has no
application to the present fact situation.
48. It is true that
validity and legality of Regulation 28 has not been put in issue. It
was apparently not done because, according to the employees, amended
Regulation 28 although made retrospective could not have affected the
concluded contract. We have already indicated above as to how the
amendment in Regulation 28 in the year 2002 with effect from 1-9-2000
could not have applied to the optees under the Scheme who had completed
service of 20 years. Lack of challenge to Regulation 28 by the employees
is, therefore, not very material. It is not correct to say that by
taking recourse to Regulation 29, the amendment to Regulation 28 is
rendered otiose.
50. It is true that
VRS2000is a complete package in itself and contractual in nature.
However, in that package, it has been provided that the optees, in
addition to ex gratia payment, will also be eligible to other benefits
inter alia pension under the Pension Regulations. The only provision in
the Pension Regulations at the relevant time during the operation of
VRS2000concerning voluntary retirement was Regulation 29 and sub-
regulation (5) thereof provides for weightage of addition of five years
to qualifying service for pension to those optees who had completed 20
years’ service. It, therefore, cannot be accepted that VRS2000did not
envisage grant of pension benefits under Regulation 29(5) of the Pension
Regulations, 1995, to the optees of 20 years’ service along with
payment of ex gratia.
51. The whole idea
in bringing out VRS2000was to right size workforce which the banks had
not been able to achieve despite the fact that the statutory Regulations
provided for voluntary retirement to the employees having completed 20
years’ service. It was for this reason that VRS2000was made more
attractive. VRS2000 accordingly, was an attractive package for the
employees to go in for as they were getting special benefits in the form
of ex gratia and in addition thereto, inter alia, pension under the
Pension Regulations which also provided for weightage of five years of
qualifying service for the purposes of pension to the employees who had
completed 20 years’ service.”
12. In the said
case of Bank of India (supra), this Court noticed the observation made
by this Court in the case of Bank of Baroda (supra) but distinguished
the same with the following observation:
“61. The
observations made by this Court in Bank of Baroda, (2009) 3 SCC217 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 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.
62. The following observations in Bank of Baroda(supra) are significant: (SCC p. 221, para
21) “21. … since
both the Tribunal as well as the High Court appear not to have
considered or taken note of the fact that the respondent was not
eligible for pension as he had not completed 15 years of qualifying
service….”
63. The decision of
this Court in Bank of Barod(supra)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 here to be decided in the present group of
matters.”
13. For
determination of the issue, it is desirable to refer to the relevant
provisions of the State Bank of Patiala Voluntary Retirement Scheme,
2001, the background of such Scheme and relevant provisions of State
Bank of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995.
14. Pursuant to
Government of India, Indian Banks Association advice different Banks
introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme including the State Bank of
Patiala Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 introduced by the Bank, by its
Circular No.Per/VRS/48 dated 20th January, 2001. Clause 3 of the Scheme
prescribed eligibility of voluntary retirement as follows:
“Clause 3:
Eligibility The scheme will be open to all permanent employees of the
Bank, except those specifically mentioned as ‘ineligible who have put in
15 years of service or have completed 40 years of age as on 31st
December, 2000. Age will be reckoned on the basis of the date of birth
as entered in service record. While calculating the period of service,
absence, which is reckoned as service, will be excluded. If an officer,
who has not completed mandatory rural or semi-urban assignment (either
wholly or partly) submits an application for retirement under SBP VRS
before approving his case, his promotions would stand withdrawn if
confirmation subsequent to promotion is subject to completing such
mandatory service.”
15. Apart from ex gratia which were offered under the Scheme, the following other benefits were prescribed therein:
“Clause 7: Other benefits
i) Gratuity as payable under the extant instructions on the relevant date.
ii) Provident Fund contribution as per SBP Employees’ Provident Rules as on relevant date.
iii) Pension or
Bank’s 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.
xxx xxx xxx xxx”
16. The respondents
who had completed more than 19 and ½ years of service applied for and
were allowed to Voluntary Retirement Scheme aforesaid. They have been
paid most of the benefits but pensionary benefits were not paid to them.
Therefore, they had to move before the High Court.
17. State Bank of
Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 are applicable to full
time employees of the Bank. Regulation 2(w) defines qualifying service
and 2(y) defines retirement, they are as follows:
“2(w) “qualifying
service” means the service rendered while on duty or otherwise which
shall be taken into account for the purpose of pension under these
regulations; 2(y) “retirement” means cessation from Bank’s service:- a)
on attaining the age of superannuation specified in –Service Regulations
of 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 or Settlement;”
18. Chapter IV relates to qualifying service. Regulation 14 defines qualifying service as under:
“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 on the date on which he is deemed
to have retired shall qualify for pension.”
For the purpose of
qualifying service, under the said Chapter IV Regulation 18 prescribes
broken period of service of less than one year as under:
“18.Broken period
of service of less than one year- If the period of service of an
employee includes broken period of service is less than one year, then
if such broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as
one year and if such broken period is six months or less it shall be
ignored.”
19. Chapter V relates to Classes of Pension (Classes of Pension). Regulation 28 deals with superannuation pension as under:
“28.Superannuation
Pension- Superannuation pension shall be granted to an employee who has
retired on his attaining the age of superannuation specified in the
Service Regulations or settlements.”
20. Regulation 29 relates to Pension on Voluntary Retirement, relevant portion of which reads as under:
“29.Pension on Voluntary Retirement-
1) On or after the
Ist day of November, 1993, at any time after an employee has completed
twenty years of qualifying service he may, by writing to the competent
authority retire from service; Provided that this sub-regulation shall
not apply to an employee who is on deputation or on study leave abroad
unless after having been transferred or having returned to India he has
resumed charge of the post in India and has served for a period of not
less than one year: Provided further that this sub-regulation shall not
apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being
absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector
undertaking or company or institution body, whether incorporated or not
to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary
retirement. Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an
employee who is deemed to have retired in accordance with clause (1) of
Regulation 2.”
xxx xxx xxx xxx (5)
The qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this
regulation shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years,
subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by
such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty years and it does not
take him beyond the date of superannuation.”
21. For premature retirement pension one may refer to Regulation 32, which reads as under:
“32. Premature
Retirement Pension Premature retirement Pension may be granted to an
employee who, - a) has rendered minimum ten years of service; b) retires
from service on account of orders of the Bank to retire prematurely in
the public interest for any other reason specified in service
regulations or settlement, if otherwise he was entitled to such pension
on superannuation on that date.”
Regulation 33 deals
with an employee compulsorily retired from service as a penalty and
which is not applicable in the present case.
22. The respondents
completed more than 10 years of service in the Bank on the date of
retirement; therefore, they fulfill the requirement of qualifying
service as per Regulation 14.
23. It has not been
disputed by appellant-Bank that the respondents in all the appeals have
completed much more than 19 years 6 months of service in the Bank. For
example, respondent No.1-Prakash Chand in C.A. No.173 of 2010 had joined
the Bank on 4th May, 1981 and relieved on 31st March, 2001. Thus, he
had completed 19 years, 10 months and 28 days of qualifying service on
the date of relieving from service.
24. Regulation 18
of the Pension Regulations, 1995 provides that if broken period is more
than six months, it shall be treated as one year. Therefore, all the
respondents-writ petitioners having completed more than 19 years and 6
months of service in the Bank, they are to be treated to have completed
20 years of service. The aforesaid question was neither raised nor
decided in the case of ‘Bank of Baroda’ or ‘Bank of India’.
25. In view of the
aforesaid fact, the appellant-Bank cannot derive the benefit of the
decision of this Court in Bank of Baroda as the employees who were
parties before the Court in the said case had not completed 20 years of
service. As per the decision of this Court in Bank of India, the
respondents-writ petitioners having completed 20 years of service are
entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29.
26. In view of the
finding recorded above, the appeals do not have merit in reference with
the impugned judgment,they are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment