LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label calculation of pension. Show all posts
Showing posts with label calculation of pension. Show all posts
Monday, November 19, 2012

Service Law: State Bank of India (Supervisory Staff) Service Rules, 1975 : Rules 20-A and 20-5. Sanction to retire-Withholding of-In case of erstwhile Imperial Bank of India (IBI) employees-Permissibility of-Person who was initially recruited as Cashier in July 1939 in the erstwhile IBI became an employee of State Bank of India (SBI) upon its constitution in 1955-Employee promoted as Head Cashier in SBI in July 1956-His date of retirement was 28-5-1970 but was granted extension in service for seven years up to 30-6-1977-During extended period charge sheet was served on him on 24-11-1975-After 30-6-1977 decision was taken to withhold sanction to retire him and to forfeit the Bank's contribution to his provident fund-Held: Withholding of sanction for retirement permissible in view of Rr. 20-A and 20-B-Further, in order to avail of retirement benefits under the rules and regulations framed for erstwhile IBI employees, sanction to retire under R.20-A mandatory-Decision to withhold sanction to retire and to forfeit Bank's contribution to employee's provident fund held valid-State Bank of India (Sub-Accountants and Head Cashiers) Service Rules, 1959-State Bank of India Act, 1955, S.43-Imperial Bank of India Act, 1920. Imperial Bank of India Employees' Pension and Guarantee Fund (Rules and Regulations) : Rule 7, Pension-Forfeiture of-Held : Implies forfeiture of Bank's contribution to pension fund and interest accruing there-on. Imperial Bank of India Employees' Provident Fund Rules : Rules 18 and 20. Rule 18-Held : Applies when an employee is dismissed from service but does not apply when sanction to retire an employee is withheld-Forfeiture of Bank's contribution towards provident fund-Forfeited amount determined at after holding enquiry against the employee-The forfeited amount repre- sented the liability incurred by the employee to the Bank-forfeiture was in accordance with R.20--Hence upheld. State Bank of India (Supervisory Staff) Service Rules, 1975 : Validity of-Held : The Service Rules have been framed in exercise of statutory power under S.43 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955-Hence valid. The respondent was appointed as Cashier in the Imperial Bank of India in July 1939 and became an employee of State Bank of India (SBI) in 1955 upon its constitution. The respondent was promoted as Head Cashier by the SBI in July 1956. Under the State Bank of India (Sub-Ac-countant and Head Cashiers) Service Rules, 1959 the respondent was due to retire on 28-5-1970. However, the respondent was granted extension in service for seven years up to 30-6-1977. During the extended period the respondent was served with a Charge Sheet on 24-11-1975. Enquiry proceedings were initiated against the respondent After 30-6-1977 a decision under Rule 11 of the Imperial Bank of India Pension and Guarantee Fund (Rules and Regulations) was taken to withhold sanction to retire the respondent and to forfeit the Bank's contribution to the respondent's provident fund under Imperial Bank of India Employees' Provident Fund Rules. The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the aforesaid decision. Hence this appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. In view of Rules 20-A and 20-B of the State Bank of India (Supervisory Staff) Service Rules, 1975 withholding of sanction to retire an employee of the erstwhile Imperial Bank of India (IBI) is permissible. Further, in order to avail of retirement benefits under the Imperial Bank of India Employees' Pension and Guarantee Fund (Rules and Regulations) and the Imperial Bank of India Employees' Provident Fund Rules framed for erstwhile IBI employees sanction to retire an employee is mandatory under Rule 20-A of the Service Rules. Moreover, the Service Rules had been framed by the State Bank of India in exercise of its statutory powers under Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Hence, the decision to withhold sanction to retire the respondent is valid and permissible. [426-F-H; 427-A-B; 429-C-D] State Bank of India v. A.N. Gupta, (1997) 6 SCALE 303, held inapplicable. T. Narsiah v. State Bank of India, (1978) 2 LLJ 173, referred to. 2. Under Rule 7 of the Imperial Bank of India Employees' Pension and Guarantee Fund (Rules and Regulations) an employee has right of property in the pension fund to the extent of his contribution made thereof with interest thereon. When the Rules talk of forfeiture of all claims upon the fund for pension that would only mean the Bank's contribution and the interest accruing thereon. [430-A-B] 3. Rule 18 of the Imperial Bank of India Employees' Provident Fund Rules applies when an employee is dismissed from service but does not apply where sanction to retire an employee has been withheld. The forfeited amount is the Bank's contribution to the respondent's provident fund ac-count. This, the Bank is entitled to forfeit under Rule 20 of the Provident Fund Rules. The forfeited amount has been arrived at after due enquiry and represents the liability incurred by the respondent to the Bank. [430-C-D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10078 of 1983. 1998 AIR 1500, 1997( 6 )Suppl.SCR 416, 1998( 2 )SCC 544, 1997( 7 )SCALE585 ,

›
PETITIONER: THE STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI C.B. DHALL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/12/1997 BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, ...

Service Law : Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993: Rules 37, 49 and 50. Pension-Fixation of-Criteria-Average emoluments-During last 10 months of service-Employee compulsorily retired while under suspension- Subsistence allowance paid during suspension period-Suspension period also counted towards qualifying service for pension-During suspension period basic pay was enhanced-But pension was fixed on the basis of average emoluments drawn by employee for 10 months prior Jo his suspension-Correctness of -Held: In the circumstances of the case, subsistence allowance drawn during the 10 months preceding retirement is to be taken as "average emoluments" and not that drawn prior to suspension-Hence, subsistence allowance @ 75% of basic pay in the revised pay scale is to be taken as "emoluments" for fixation of pension-Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986-Railway Establishment Code, R. 1303. Rule 50 Note 1 and proviso-Compulsory retirement-While under suspension- Applicability of-Held: Note 1 is applicable when employee under suspension is reinstated-It is not applicable when employee is compulsorily retired while under suspension-Therefore, proviso to Note 1 is also not applicable. Words and Phrases: "Emoluments"-Meaning of-In the context of R. 49 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. "Average Emoluments"-Meaning of-In the context of R. 50 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. "Subsistence allowance"-Meaning of. The appellant-railway employee was placed under suspension on 21-1-1982 and compulsorily retired from service w.e.f. 25-11-1992. However, the President granted subsistence allowance to the appellant during the suspension period and it was allowed to count as qualifying service for pension but for no other purpose under Rule 37 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. The appellant's pension was fixed on the basis of the average emoluments drawn by him during the 10 months preceding the date of his suspension i.e. 21-1-1982. The appellant filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal contending that there was notional revision of his pay w.e.f. 1-1-1986; that he was granted subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of the revised pay; and , therefore, the subsistence allowance drawn by him during the 10 months preceding his compulsory retirement should be taken as his emoluments for the purpose of fixing his pension. The petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the appellant had not actually drawn the pay in the revised scale and, therefore, the revised pay could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of average emoluments under Notes 1 and 2 of Rules 50 of the Rules. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1. The contention of the respondent that the appellant had not actually drawn the revised pay but only subsistence allowance and, therefore, the revised pay could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of average emoluments under proviso to Note 1 of Rule 50 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 is not acceptable. Note 1 does not apply in this case. Note 1 is applicable to a railway servant when he is reinstated whereas the appellant was not reinstated. Therefore, proviso to Note 1 is also not applicable in this case. However, the proviso to Note 1 means that increase in pay not actually drawn i.e. which is only notionally fixed but without a right for payments, cannot go into the computation. [131-B-C] E. Gopalakrishna v. Union of India, [1995] Supp. 4 SCC 205, referred to. 2. Note 2 does not also apply in this case since the suspension period is to be disregarded only if such period is not to count as service. The words `the period whereof does not count as service' occurring in Note 2 are important and have to be given effect to. The respondents have obviously ignored the said word `not' occurring in Note 2 and clearly misinterpreted the said Note 2 below Rule 50. In the case of the appellant the President's order clearly states that the period of suspension is to count towards "qualifying service". If the President, as the Disciplinary Authority, has directed that the period of suspension shall count as qualifying service-it is wholly impermissible for the Railways to omit the said period from consideration on the specious ground that before 25-11-1992 the appellant has drawn only subsistence allowance and not pay. The very purpose of the order of the President cannot thus be allowed to be defeated. [131-E-F-G] 3. There is an express direction by the President to count the service, within Rule 37 of the Rules. Therefore, once the suspension period is directed to be counted for computing the qualifying service, it is the emoluments drawn at the end of the period just before retirement that become relevant and not the `pay' drawn before the commencement of suspension- which in this case goes to period of ten years before 1992. Further, the appellant has put in less than 20 years' service by the date of his suspension on 21-1-1982. If the respondent's contention is accepted, no pension can in fact at all be paid to him. It is not the respondent's contention that no pension need be paid. This is again one more reason as to why the contention of the respondent is to be rejected. [132-A-B-C-D] 4. The respondent's contention that the appellant has drawn only subsistence allowance and not "emoluments" during his period of suspension and, therefore, his pension could not be computed on the basis of the subsistence allowance is not acceptable. Rule 49 of the Rules refers to `basic pay' and Rule 1303 of the Railway Establishment Code refers to `amount drawn'. A combined reading of these two provisions shows that if full basic pay is `emoluments', that being the monthly amount drawn, then 75% of the full basic pay will also be `emoluments' in the case of a person under suspension, it being the amount drawn month by month by the railway servant. Thus the first condition is satisfied. The other requirement of the definition of `emoluments' for purpose of pension is that the amount is to be computed on the basis of emoluments drawn during the 10 months before retirement. This condition cannot be disregarded by the respondents. Thus both ingredients of the definition of `emoluments' are satisfied. Further, Rule 49(2) specifically requires that the scales as revised w.e.f. 1-1-1986 are to be taken into account as per the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986. This sub-rule cannot be allowed to be disregarded by the respondents. [132-E; 133-D-E-F] 5. The appellant is not asking that his pension is to be fixed on the basis of the full salary payable in the 10 months before his compulsory retirement on 25-11-1982. The appellant's plea is that the pension is to be fixed on the basis of the subsistence allowance fixed and drawn by him in the 10 months preceding the date of his compulsory retirement i.e. 25-11-1982. That has been fixed on the basis of the scales revised w.e.f. 1-1-1986. This plea is certainly permissible under the Rules. On the other hand, if the emoluments drawn before suspension i.e. average during 10 months before 1982-then that will amount to going by the pre-1982 emoluments while the Rule requires that the emoluments during 10 months before retirement are to be taken into account. [133-G-H; 134-A] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4323 of 1999. 1999 AIR 3589, 1999(1 )Suppl.SCR121 , 1999(8 )SCC110 , 1999(4 )SCALE507 , 1999(5 )JT400

›
PETITIONER: R P KAPUR Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/08/1999 BENCH: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, & ...