Service matter - VRS scheme 2000 - Pension Who completed 20 years of service are entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29 by the date of VRS - Regulations 28 , 29 and Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 - High court relying on earlier DB bench judgement of Punjab National Bank dismissed the writ petition as the employees who took voluntary service not completed the requisite period for granting pension -basing on that judgment Bank filed this appeal - Apex court held that 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’. 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.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. =
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. =
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.”=
Apex court held that
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.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2010
STATE OF BANK OF PATIALA … APPELLANT
VERSUS
PRITAM SINGH BEDI & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.173 OF 2010,
CIVIL APPEAL NO.177 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO.178 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO.179 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO.180 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO.186 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO.187 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1916 OF 2011
J U D G M E N T
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.
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) SCC 217 and
Bank of India vs. K. Mohandas and others, 2009(5) SCC 313. 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 VRS 2000? 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 VRS 2000 and 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 VRS 2000 states 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 VRS 2000 is 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 VRS
2000 concerning 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 VRS 2000 did 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 VRS 2000 was 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 VRS 2000 was made more attractive.
VRS 2000, 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 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 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.
…………………………………………………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
…………………………………………………J.
(V. GOPALA GOWDA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 07,2014.
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. =
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.”=
Apex court held that
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.
2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41751
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2010
STATE OF BANK OF PATIALA … APPELLANT
VERSUS
PRITAM SINGH BEDI & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.173 OF 2010,
CIVIL APPEAL NO.177 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO.178 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO.179 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO.180 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO.186 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO.187 OF 2010
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1916 OF 2011
J U D G M E N T
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.
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) SCC 217 and
Bank of India vs. K. Mohandas and others, 2009(5) SCC 313. 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 VRS 2000? 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 VRS 2000 and 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 VRS 2000 states 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 VRS 2000 is 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 VRS
2000 concerning 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 VRS 2000 did 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 VRS 2000 was 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 VRS 2000 was made more attractive.
VRS 2000, 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 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 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.
…………………………………………………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
…………………………………………………J.
(V. GOPALA GOWDA)
NEW DELHI,
JULY 07,2014.
