Pension would be granted only after completion of 15 years service =
The respondent also sought voluntary retirement under this
scheme. His application was accepted and he was given voluntary
retirement on 15.12.2000. He was also accorded superannuation
benefits like Provident Fund, Gratuity and Leave Encashment.
5. The Bank has also Pension scheme for its employees which is
known as Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation 1995
(hereinafter referred to as the “Pension Regulation”). As per
Regulation 28 of these Pension Regulations, an employee who has
rendered a minimum period of 15 years of service is entitled to get
pension. Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulation reads as under:
“Regulation 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 Settlement.
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.”
6. As on the date of voluntary retirement of the respondent, the
respondent had not completed 15 years of service. In fact, service
rendered by him as on that date was 14 years 2 months and 19 days.
For this reason, the appellant-Bank did not issue any Pension Order in
his favour.
The respondent, however, pleaded that since his
application for voluntary retirement under VRS, 2000 was accepted
which lays down the conditions of service for a minimum period of 15
years, the respondent became entitled to pension as well, inasmuch as
the deficit period was waived by the appellant-Bank by its conduct in
accepting the application for voluntary retirement. =
High Court committed a grave error in following Dharam Pal case,
ignoring that the said judgment in the case of Dharam Pal Singh
(supra) of the Division Bench of the High Court had already been
overruled by this Court on 24.2.2011 in Civil Appeal No.2132/2011.
9. This position could not be disputed by learned counsel for the
respondent. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in Dharam Pal
Singh (supra) (CA 2132/2011) would demonstrate that the issue
involved in the case had already been determined by this Court in Bank
of Baroda & Ors. vs. Ganpat Singh Deora (2009) 3 SCC 217 where the
identically worded Regulations were considered. The Court, thus,
found that the judgment of the High Court in Dharam Pal Singh was
contrary to the decision in Bank of Baroda case and set aside the
same.
In Bank of Baroda, this Court has held that unless 15 years
service is rendered by an employee, he will not be eligible for
pensionary benefits.
To quote the relevant discussion on this aspect,
we reproduce the following passage therefrom:
“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
voluntary retirement. 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 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. The facts of this case, however, do not
attract the provisions 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-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 different situations. However,
Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, after amendment
made provision for situations similar to the one in the instant
case. In the absence of any particular provision for payment of
pension to those who opted for BOBEVRS-2001 other than
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 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.
We are, therefore, of the view that not having completed the
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.”
10. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court. No costs.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9172/2013
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31483 of 2012)
Punjab National Bank & Ors. …Appellants
Vs.
Ram Kishan …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
A.K.SIKRI,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The facts which need narration for determination of the lis
involved in this appeal are recapitulated as under:
3. The respondent herein joined the appellant-Bank as Peon on
13.8.1986. In the year 2000, the appellant-Bank introduced Voluntary
Retirement Scheme known as Punjab National Bank Employees Voluntary
Retirement Scheme 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “VRS, 2000”). This
scheme was widely circulated, period whereof was 1.11.2000 to
30.11.2000 during which period those employees who wanted to seek
voluntary retirement under the said scheme were permitted to apply.
It was made applicable to those permanent full time employees of the
Bank who had completed 15 years qualifying service or 40 years of age
which means those employees fulfilling either of the aforesaid
conditions were eligible to apply under the VRS, 2000.
4. The respondent also sought voluntary retirement under this
scheme. His application was accepted and he was given voluntary
retirement on 15.12.2000. He was also accorded superannuation
benefits like Provident Fund, Gratuity and Leave Encashment.
5. The Bank has also Pension scheme for its employees which is
known as Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation 1995
(hereinafter referred to as the “Pension Regulation”). As per
Regulation 28 of these Pension Regulations, an employee who has
rendered a minimum period of 15 years of service is entitled to get
pension. Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulation reads as under:
“Regulation 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 Settlement.
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.”
6. As on the date of voluntary retirement of the respondent, the
respondent had not completed 15 years of service. In fact, service
rendered by him as on that date was 14 years 2 months and 19 days.
For this reason, the appellant-Bank did not issue any Pension Order in
his favour.
The respondent, however, pleaded that since his
application for voluntary retirement under VRS, 2000 was accepted
which lays down the conditions of service for a minimum period of 15
years, the respondent became entitled to pension as well, inasmuch as
the deficit period was waived by the appellant-Bank by its conduct in
accepting the application for voluntary retirement.
7. As the representation of the respondent to grant him pensionary
benefits was rejected by the appellant-Bank, aggrieved by the order of
rejection, the appellant filed civil suit in the court of Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Gurdaspur, Punjab for declaration that he was
entitled to pension with consequential relief and for mandatory
injunction to direct the appellant-Bank to release all the benefits
along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date it had become due
to him. This Suit was, however, dismissed by the Civil Court vide
judgment and decree dated 29.8.2003 holding that pension could be
granted only on completion of 15 years of service which period of
service the respondent had not completed. He was, therefore, held
entitled to other benefits like ex-gratia, gratuity and leave
encashment but not the pension. The respondents filed Regular First
Appeal against the aforesaid judgment under Section 96 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (CPC) read with Order 41 CPC. This Civil Appeal also
met with the same fate as it was dismissed affirming the judgment of
the Trial Court. Still aggrieved, the respondent took the matter to
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing Regular Second Appeal
under Section 100 of the CPC. By impugned judgment dated 13.3.2012,
the High Court has allowed the Second Appeal. In this judgment, there
is no detailed discussion touching upon the provisions contained in
VRS, 2000 or the Pension Regulations. A bare reading of the judgment
reveals that the Court has followed its earlier Division Bench
judgment rendered in the case of Dharam Pal Singh vs. Punjab National
Bank (2008) 149 PLR 745. Against this impugned judgment, Bank filed
instant Special Leave Petition under Art. 136 of the Constitution of
India wherein leave has been granted.
8. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the
High Court committed a grave error in following Dharam Pal case,
ignoring that the said judgment in the case of Dharam Pal Singh
(supra) of the Division Bench of the High Court had already been
overruled by this Court on 24.2.2011 in Civil Appeal No.2132/2011.
9. This position could not be disputed by learned counsel for the
respondent. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in Dharam Pal
Singh (supra) (CA 2132/2011) would demonstrate that the issue
involved in the case had already been determined by this Court in Bank
of Baroda & Ors. vs. Ganpat Singh Deora (2009) 3 SCC 217 where the
identically worded Regulations were considered. The Court, thus,
found that the judgment of the High Court in Dharam Pal Singh was
contrary to the decision in Bank of Baroda case and set aside the
same.
In Bank of Baroda, this Court has held that unless 15 years
service is rendered by an employee, he will not be eligible for
pensionary benefits.
To quote the relevant discussion on this aspect,
we reproduce the following passage therefrom:
“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
voluntary retirement. 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 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. The facts of this case, however, do not
attract the provisions 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-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 different situations. However,
Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, after amendment
made provision for situations similar to the one in the instant
case. In the absence of any particular provision for payment of
pension to those who opted for BOBEVRS-2001 other than
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 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.
We are, therefore, of the view that not having completed the
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.”
10. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court. No costs.
------------------------------------J.
(Ranjana Prakash Desai)
------------------------------------J.
( A.K.Sikri)
New Delhi
October 18, 2013
The respondent also sought voluntary retirement under this
scheme. His application was accepted and he was given voluntary
retirement on 15.12.2000. He was also accorded superannuation
benefits like Provident Fund, Gratuity and Leave Encashment.
5. The Bank has also Pension scheme for its employees which is
known as Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation 1995
(hereinafter referred to as the “Pension Regulation”). As per
Regulation 28 of these Pension Regulations, an employee who has
rendered a minimum period of 15 years of service is entitled to get
pension. Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulation reads as under:
“Regulation 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 Settlement.
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.”
6. As on the date of voluntary retirement of the respondent, the
respondent had not completed 15 years of service. In fact, service
rendered by him as on that date was 14 years 2 months and 19 days.
For this reason, the appellant-Bank did not issue any Pension Order in
his favour.
The respondent, however, pleaded that since his
application for voluntary retirement under VRS, 2000 was accepted
which lays down the conditions of service for a minimum period of 15
years, the respondent became entitled to pension as well, inasmuch as
the deficit period was waived by the appellant-Bank by its conduct in
accepting the application for voluntary retirement. =
High Court committed a grave error in following Dharam Pal case,
ignoring that the said judgment in the case of Dharam Pal Singh
(supra) of the Division Bench of the High Court had already been
overruled by this Court on 24.2.2011 in Civil Appeal No.2132/2011.
9. This position could not be disputed by learned counsel for the
respondent. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in Dharam Pal
Singh (supra) (CA 2132/2011) would demonstrate that the issue
involved in the case had already been determined by this Court in Bank
of Baroda & Ors. vs. Ganpat Singh Deora (2009) 3 SCC 217 where the
identically worded Regulations were considered. The Court, thus,
found that the judgment of the High Court in Dharam Pal Singh was
contrary to the decision in Bank of Baroda case and set aside the
same.
In Bank of Baroda, this Court has held that unless 15 years
service is rendered by an employee, he will not be eligible for
pensionary benefits.
To quote the relevant discussion on this aspect,
we reproduce the following passage therefrom:
“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
voluntary retirement. 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 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. The facts of this case, however, do not
attract the provisions 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-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 different situations. However,
Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, after amendment
made provision for situations similar to the one in the instant
case. In the absence of any particular provision for payment of
pension to those who opted for BOBEVRS-2001 other than
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 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.
We are, therefore, of the view that not having completed the
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.”
10. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court. No costs.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9172/2013
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31483 of 2012)
Punjab National Bank & Ors. …Appellants
Vs.
Ram Kishan …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
A.K.SIKRI,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The facts which need narration for determination of the lis
involved in this appeal are recapitulated as under:
3. The respondent herein joined the appellant-Bank as Peon on
13.8.1986. In the year 2000, the appellant-Bank introduced Voluntary
Retirement Scheme known as Punjab National Bank Employees Voluntary
Retirement Scheme 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “VRS, 2000”). This
scheme was widely circulated, period whereof was 1.11.2000 to
30.11.2000 during which period those employees who wanted to seek
voluntary retirement under the said scheme were permitted to apply.
It was made applicable to those permanent full time employees of the
Bank who had completed 15 years qualifying service or 40 years of age
which means those employees fulfilling either of the aforesaid
conditions were eligible to apply under the VRS, 2000.
4. The respondent also sought voluntary retirement under this
scheme. His application was accepted and he was given voluntary
retirement on 15.12.2000. He was also accorded superannuation
benefits like Provident Fund, Gratuity and Leave Encashment.
5. The Bank has also Pension scheme for its employees which is
known as Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation 1995
(hereinafter referred to as the “Pension Regulation”). As per
Regulation 28 of these Pension Regulations, an employee who has
rendered a minimum period of 15 years of service is entitled to get
pension. Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulation reads as under:
“Regulation 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 Settlement.
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.”
6. As on the date of voluntary retirement of the respondent, the
respondent had not completed 15 years of service. In fact, service
rendered by him as on that date was 14 years 2 months and 19 days.
For this reason, the appellant-Bank did not issue any Pension Order in
his favour.
The respondent, however, pleaded that since his
application for voluntary retirement under VRS, 2000 was accepted
which lays down the conditions of service for a minimum period of 15
years, the respondent became entitled to pension as well, inasmuch as
the deficit period was waived by the appellant-Bank by its conduct in
accepting the application for voluntary retirement.
7. As the representation of the respondent to grant him pensionary
benefits was rejected by the appellant-Bank, aggrieved by the order of
rejection, the appellant filed civil suit in the court of Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Gurdaspur, Punjab for declaration that he was
entitled to pension with consequential relief and for mandatory
injunction to direct the appellant-Bank to release all the benefits
along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date it had become due
to him. This Suit was, however, dismissed by the Civil Court vide
judgment and decree dated 29.8.2003 holding that pension could be
granted only on completion of 15 years of service which period of
service the respondent had not completed. He was, therefore, held
entitled to other benefits like ex-gratia, gratuity and leave
encashment but not the pension. The respondents filed Regular First
Appeal against the aforesaid judgment under Section 96 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (CPC) read with Order 41 CPC. This Civil Appeal also
met with the same fate as it was dismissed affirming the judgment of
the Trial Court. Still aggrieved, the respondent took the matter to
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing Regular Second Appeal
under Section 100 of the CPC. By impugned judgment dated 13.3.2012,
the High Court has allowed the Second Appeal. In this judgment, there
is no detailed discussion touching upon the provisions contained in
VRS, 2000 or the Pension Regulations. A bare reading of the judgment
reveals that the Court has followed its earlier Division Bench
judgment rendered in the case of Dharam Pal Singh vs. Punjab National
Bank (2008) 149 PLR 745. Against this impugned judgment, Bank filed
instant Special Leave Petition under Art. 136 of the Constitution of
India wherein leave has been granted.
8. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the
High Court committed a grave error in following Dharam Pal case,
ignoring that the said judgment in the case of Dharam Pal Singh
(supra) of the Division Bench of the High Court had already been
overruled by this Court on 24.2.2011 in Civil Appeal No.2132/2011.
9. This position could not be disputed by learned counsel for the
respondent. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in Dharam Pal
Singh (supra) (CA 2132/2011) would demonstrate that the issue
involved in the case had already been determined by this Court in Bank
of Baroda & Ors. vs. Ganpat Singh Deora (2009) 3 SCC 217 where the
identically worded Regulations were considered. The Court, thus,
found that the judgment of the High Court in Dharam Pal Singh was
contrary to the decision in Bank of Baroda case and set aside the
same.
In Bank of Baroda, this Court has held that unless 15 years
service is rendered by an employee, he will not be eligible for
pensionary benefits.
To quote the relevant discussion on this aspect,
we reproduce the following passage therefrom:
“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
voluntary retirement. 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 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. The facts of this case, however, do not
attract the provisions 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-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 different situations. However,
Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, after amendment
made provision for situations similar to the one in the instant
case. In the absence of any particular provision for payment of
pension to those who opted for BOBEVRS-2001 other than
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 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.
We are, therefore, of the view that not having completed the
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.”
10. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court. No costs.
------------------------------------J.
(Ranjana Prakash Desai)
------------------------------------J.
( A.K.Sikri)
New Delhi
October 18, 2013
