CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus TARA CHAND on 31 July 2019

1. This appeal has been filed by the Central Bank of Indiachallenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan HighCourt dated 09.03.2017 in the DB Civil Special Appeal No.817 of 2015Bdismissing the Special Appeal filed by the appellants. The Special Appealwas filed by the appellants against the judgment of the learned SingleJudge dated 28.04.2015 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondentquashing the order of the Bank dated 12.09.2001 denying to grant pro-rata pension upon opting for voluntary retirement under the Central BankCof India Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001.

2. Necessary facts for deciding this appeal are:

On 26.10.1995 Central Bank of India (Employees’) PensionRegulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations, 1995) cameinto force. The respondent-Tara Chand opted for the pension scheme.DThe respondent’s option for pension scheme was accepted by the Bank.A Scheme for voluntary retirement, namely, Central Bank of IndiaEmployees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001(hereinafter referred toas “Scheme, 2001”) was framed which was made effective from22.02.2001 to 08.03.2001. Prior to the Scheme being made effective aEcircular dated 31.01.2001 was issued by the Bank by which severalclarifications were issued for smooth implementation of the Scheme.The respondent submitted an application for voluntary retirement on23.02.2001. The application for voluntary retirement of respondent wasaccepted by the Bank by order dated 26.03.2001. By order dated12.09.2001, the Bank refused to grant pro-rata pension to the respondentFNo.1, who had opted for the voluntary retirement under the Scheme,2001. A S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4342 of 2001 was filed by therespondent praying for quashing the order dated 12.09.2001 and prayingfor a direction to the Bank to extend pensionary benefits to the respondentupon his retirement with effect from 01.04.2001. The learned SingleGJudge after considering the Regulations, 1995 and the Scheme, 2001took the view that Clause 6(ii) of the Scheme, 2001 entitled the respondentto pension as per Pension Regulations, 1995. The writ petition wasallowed and the order dated 12.06.2001 was set aside with direction tothe Bank to extend benefits of pro-rata/proportionate pension to therespondent to the extent of his entitlement in terms of the Scheme, 2001

H

H

read with Regulations, 1995. The Bank aggrieved by the judgment ofthe learned Single Judge filed Special Appeal, which too had beendismissed by the Division Bench. The Division Bench took the view thatthe respondent who was above 40 years of age and had completed 11years of service in the Bank was definitely entitled to opt for voluntaryretirement and simultaneously claim pension under the Scheme. TheDivision Bench took the view that Clause 6(ii) of the Scheme, 2001entitles the respondent to pension. The Division Bench placed relianceon the judgment of this Court in Bank of India and another Vs. K.Mohandas and others, (2009) 5 SCC 313. Aggrieved against thejudgment of the High Court, the Bank has come up in this appeal.

3. Shri Debal Banerjee, learned senior counsel, appearing for theappellant contended that as per Clause 6(ii) of the Scheme, 2001, anemployee seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme, 2001 will beeligible for pension only as per Regulations, 1995. It is submitted thateligibility to apply under the Scheme, 2001 does not ipso facto entitle anemployee to receive pension. An employee is entitled for pension as perRegulations, 1995. He submits that as per Regulation 28 w.e.f.01.09.2000, an employee is entitled for pension who opts to retire beforeattaining the age of superannuation, but after rendering service for aminimum period of 15 years in terms of any Scheme. He submits thatthe respondent having not rendered 15 years of service is not entitled forthe pension and the Bank has rightly rejected it. Shri Banerjee furtherrelied on the judgment of this Court in Bank of Baroda and others vs.Ganpat Singh Deora, (2009) 3 SCC 217, Pubjab National Bankand others vs. Ram Kishan, (2014) 13 SCC 485 and RegionalManager, Punjab National Bank and another vs. Dharam Pal Singh,(2014) 13 SCC 484.

4. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel, appearing for therespondent refuting the submissions of the appellant contends that therespondent was clearly entitled for pension and the High Court hascommitted no error in allowing the claim of pension of the respondent. Itis submitted that as per Clause 4 of the Scheme, an employee who hascompleted 15 years of service in the Bank or 40 years of age will beeligible to seek voluntary retirement under the Scheme and is eligible forpension. The respondent having completed 40 years of age was clearlyeligible. He further submits that as per Regulation 14 of Regulations,1995, an employee who has rendered a minimum of 10 years of service AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ain the Bank on the date of the retirement or the date on which he isdeemed to have retired shall qualify for pension. The respondent havingrendered 11 years of service was clearly eligible for pension.

5. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the respondent has placedreliance on the judgment of this Court in Bank of India and anotherBVs. K. Mohandas and others, (2009) 5 SCC 313 and NationalInsurance Company Limited and another vs. Kirpal Singh, (2014)5

SCC 189. Dr. Singhvi further submits that the present is a case wherethe respondent applied for pension in the year 2001 and for the last 18years he is waiting for pension. Hence, present is a case where thisCourt may not interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.C6. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perusedthe records.

7. We may first notice the relevant provisions of the Scheme,2001. Clause 4 deals with the eligibility to the following effect:D“4. ELIGIBILITY:- 4.1All permanent employees of the Bank will be eligible to seekvoluntary retirement under the scheme provided theymeet the following eligibility criteria as on the date ofapplication: - E

a)they have completed 15 years of service in the Bank OR

b)40 years of age.

4.2However, the employees falling in the following categoriesFare not eligible to seek voluntary retirement under thescheme:-

a) All existing Specialists Officers;

b) Officers/employees who have executed service bondsGand have not completed it;

c) Employees serving abroad under special arrangementsbonds;

d) Employees against whom disciplinary proceedings arecontemplated/pending or who are under suspension; H

e) Employees appointed on contract basis; A

f) Any other category of employees as may be specifiedby the management.”

8. Clause 6 deals with the other benefits, which is to the following effect:

B

“6. OTHER BENEFITS:-

An employee seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme willbe eligible for the following benefits in addition to the ex-gratiaamount mentioned in Clause 5 above of this Scheme:- C

i)Gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or Gratuitypayable under the Service Rules as the case may be, as perexisting rules;

ii)a)Pension (including commuted value of pension) as perCentral Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations1995 (in case of those who have opted for Pension andDotherwise eligible for the same)

OR

b) Bank’s contribution towards PF as per existing rules (inrespect of employees opted to PF)

E

iii) Leave encashment as per existing rules.”

9. It is true that as per Clause 4 any employee who has 15 yearsof service or completed 40 years of age is eligible to apply for voluntaryretirement under the Scheme. There is no dispute that the respondentwas eligible to apply for voluntary retirement, other benefits under theScheme have been extended to the respondent and only limited issue inthe present appeal is entitlement of the respondent for pension. Clause6(ii), which is relevant provision regarding entitlement of the claim providesthat “Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per Central Bankof India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995……” Thus, paymentof pension under the Scheme has to be as per Pension Regulations,1995. Thus, we have to refer to the Pension Regulations to find out theentitlement of the respondent. Regulation 14 which is relied by the learnedcounsel for respondent provides as follows:

F

G

A“Regulation 14.Qualifying Service - Subject to the otherconditions contained in these regulations, an employee who hasrendered a minimum of ten years of service in the Bank on thedate of his retirement or the date on which he is deemed to haveretired shall qualify for pension.”

B10. Regulation 14 begins with the words “subject to the otherconditions contained in these regulations”. Further, an employee whohas rendered a minimum of ten years of service in the Bank on the dateof his retirement or the date on which he is deemed to have retired shallqualify for pension. Thus, this qualifying service is relevant when a personhas completed 10 years of service on the date of his retirement. TheCretirement has been defined in definition Clause 2(y), which is to thefollowing effect:

“”Retirement” means cessation from Bank’s service (a) on attaining the age of superannuation specified inService Regulations or Settlements; D

(b) on voluntary retirement in accordance with provisionscontained in Regulation 29 of these regulations;

(c) on premature retirement by the Bank before attainingthe age of superannuation specified in Service RegulationsEor Settlement;

11. Voluntary retirement in the case of respondent is not retirementwhich is covered within the definition of Clause 2(y) on strict interpretationof definition clause. Furthermore, as clear from the opening words, thesaid qualifying service is “subject to the other conditions contained inFRegulations”. Chapter V of the Regulations, 1995 deals with classes ofpension. Different classes of pension include superannuation pension,pension on voluntary retirement, invalid pension, compassionateallowance, premature retirement pension and compulsory retirementpension. Classes of pension specifically defined in Chapter V and in asense retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme was notGcontemplated when the Regulations were made in 1995. Regulation 28was amended in the year 2002 w.e.f. 01.09.2000 whereby an employeewho opts for retirement before superannuation, but after rendering servicefor a minimum period of 15 years was also entitled for pension. Therespondent is not covered by proviso to Regulation 28. As noted above, H

as per Clause 6(ii) of the Scheme 2001 entitlement being on the basis ofPension Regulations, 1995, the respondent shall be entitled only forpension if he falls in any of the classes of pension in Chapter V. We maynotice that proviso to Regulation 28 although was amended w.e.f.01.09.2000 but it was clarified by Circular dated 31.01.2001 that theemployees, who opted for pension but completed minimum 15 years ofservice and opt for voluntary retirement under this Scheme would alsobe eligible for pro-rata pension. Para 2(A)(2.5) is relevant which is quotedbelow:

“2.5 In terms of Clause 6 of the Scheme, an employee seekingvoluntary retirement under this Scheme will, in additionto the ex-gratia amount to the extent stated therein, beeligible for gratuity as per existing Act/Rules, as the casemay be, and pension (including commuted value ofpension) as per Pension Regulations (in case of thosewho opted for pension and otherwise eligible for thesame) or Banks’ contribution towards PF (in respect ofemployees opted to PF), Leave encashment as perexisting rules.

In this context, it is clarified that in terms of the proposedamendments to Pension Regulations, the employees whoopted for pension but completed minimum 15 years ofservice and opt for voluntary retirement under thisScheme would also be eligible for pro-rata pension forthe period of service rendered as if they are to retire onattaining the age of superannuation. In other words, suchemployees are not eligible for the addition of 5 yearsnotional weightage which is otherwise available to otherpension optees retired voluntarily under Regulation 29of Pension Regulations. This provision is applicablepending adoption of the amendment to Regulation 28 ofCentral Bank of India (Employees’) PensionRegulations, 1995, through due process.”

12. Now, we come to the judgment of this Court relied by thelearned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant hasrelied on the judgment of this Court in Bank of Baroda and others vs.Ganpat Singh Deora (supra) where this Court had occasion to consider AB

CD

E

F

G

H

ABank of Baroda (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 and Bank ofBaroda Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001. In the abovecase, the respondent -employee had rendered only 13 years of serviceand having completed 40 years of age was eligible under the Scheme,2001. Paragraph 4 of the judgment gives the facts. Regulation 28 ofRegulations, 1995 is pari materia to the amended Regulation 28 ofBRegulations, 1995. Paragraph 8 contains amended Regulation 28, whichis to the following effect:

“8. The said amended Regulation 28 was published in the Gazetteof India on 2-1-2004 and provides as follows:

“28. Superannuation Pension.- Super-annuation Pension shallbe granted to an employee who has retired on his attaining theage of Superannuation specified in the Service Regulations orsettlements:

C

Provided that, with effect from 1-9-2000 pension shall also beDgranted to an employee who opts to retire before attaining theage of superannuation, but after rendering service for a minimumperiod of 15 years in terms of any scheme that may be framed forsuch purpose by the Board with the approval of the Government.”

13. Regulation 29 of Bank of Baroda Regulations provided forEpension on voluntary retirement. The similar argument was raised in theabove case on behalf of the employee which has been noted in paragraph22 of the judgment, which is to the following effect:

“22. Mr. Agarwala’s submissions were strongly opposed by Ms.Aishwarya Bhati, learned advocate appearing for the respondent.She emphatically contended that in a case involving voluntaryFretirement Regulation 29 would not apply and that, in fact,Regulation 14 would be relevant. Ms. Bhati urged that Regulation29 of the Pension Regulations dealt not with voluntary retirementunder a Scheme but with cases of premature retirement whichwould be quite clear from the wording thereof. Ms. Bhati urgedGthat Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 29 provides for a situationwhere an employee wishes to retire from service even in theabsence of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The Regulationcontemplates that in such a case the employee is not only requiredto complete 15 years of service but is also required to give notice H

of not less than 3 months in writing to the Appointing Authority,and, thereafter, retire from service.”

14. In paragraphs 28 to 33, this Court dealing with Regulations aswell as Scheme laid down following:

“28. However, we are inclined to agree with Ms. Bhati thatRegulation 29 does not contemplate voluntary retirement underthe Voluntary Retirement Scheme and applies only to suchemployees who themselves wish to retire de hors any Scheme ofVoluntary Retirement, after having completed 15 years ofqualifying service for the said purpose. There is a distinct differencebetween the two situations and Regulation 29 would not coverthe case of an employee opting to retire on the basis of a VoluntaryRetirement Scheme.

29. Furthermore, Regulation 2 of the Voluntary RetirementScheme, 2001, of the appellant-Bank merely prescribes a periodof qualifying service for an employee to be eligible to apply forvoluntary retirement.

30. On the other hand, Regulations 14 and 29 of the PensionRegulations, 1995, relate to the period of qualifying service forpension under the said Regulations, in two different situations.While Regulation 14 provides that in order to be eligible for pensionan employee would have to render a minimum of 10 years’ service,Regulation 29 is applicable to the employees choosing to retirefrom service pre-maturely, and in their case the period of qualifyingservice would be 15 years.

31. The facts of this case, however, do not attract the provisionsof Regulation 29 since the respondent accepted the offer ofvoluntary retirement under the Scheme framed by the Bank andnot on his own volition de hors any Scheme of VoluntaryRetirement. In such a case, Regulation 14 read with Regulation32 providing for premature retirement would not also apply to thecase of the respondent. While Regulation 2 of the BOBEVRS-2001 speaks of eligibility for applying under the Scheme, Regulation14 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, contemplates a situationwhereunder an employee would be eligible for premature pension.The two provisions are for two different purposes and for two A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

different situations. However, Regulation 28 of the PensionRegulations, 1995, after amendment made provision for situationssimilar to the one in the instant case.

32. In the absence of any particular provision for payment ofpension to those who opted for BOBEVRS-2001 other thanBRegulation 11(ii) of the Scheme, we are once again left to fallback on the Pension Regulations, 1995, and the amended provisionsof Regulation 28 which brings within the scope of SuperannuationPension employees who opted for the Voluntary RetirementScheme, which will be clear from the Explanatory Memorandum.However, the period of qualifying service has been retained as 15Cyears for those opting for BOBEVRS-2001 and is treateddifferently from premature retirement where the minimum periodof qualifying service has been fixed at 10 years in keeping withRegulation 14 of the Pension Regulations, 1995.

33. We are, therefore, of the view that not having completed therequired length of qualifying service as provided under Regulation28 of the 1995 Regulations, the respondent was not eligible forpension under the Pension Regulations, 1995, of the appellantBank.”

D

15. The above judgment was subsequently followed in RegionalEManager, Punjab National Bank and another vs. Dharam Pal Singhand Punjab National Bank and others vs. Ram Kishan (supra).

16. The judgment on which much reliance has been placed by thelearned counsel for the respondent is Bank of India and another vs.K. Mohandas and others (supra). The issue arose for considerationFin the above case has been noticed in paragraph 24 of the judgment,which is to the following effect:

“24. The principal question that falls for our determination is:whether the employees (having completed 20 years of service)of these banks (Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Punjab &Sind Bank, Union Bank of India and United Bank of India) whohad opted for voluntary retirement under VRS 2000 are entitledto addition of five years of notional service in calculating the lengthof service for the purpose of the said Scheme as per Regulation29(5) of Pension Regulations, 1995?”

G

H

17. In the above case, the Scheme was noted as VRS 2000. Underthe aforesaid Scheme eligibility was to employee who had renderedminimum of 15 years of service or completed 40 years of age. In theabove case, the judgment of this Court in Bank of Baroda and othersvs. Ganpat Singh Deora (supra) was relied by the Bank, whichjudgment was noticed and this Court laid down following in paragraphs61 and 63:

“61. The observations made by this Court in Bank of Baroda(2009 (3) SCC 217) which have been quoted above and reliedupon by the banks in support of their contention have to beunderstood in the factual backdrop namely, that the employee hadcompleted only 13 years of service and, was not eligible for thepension under the Pension Regulations, 1995 and for the benefitof addition of five years to qualifying service under Regulation29(5), an employee must have completed 20 years of service.The question therein was not identical in form with the questionhere to be decided.

63. The decision of this Court in Bank of Baroda is, thus, clearlydistinguishable as the employee therein had not completedqualifying service much less 20 years of service for being eligibleto the weightage under Regulation 29(5) and cannot be applied tothe present controversy nor does that matter decide the questionhere to be decided in the present group of matters.”

18. The judgment of Bank of Baroda and others vs. GanpatSingh Deora (supra) was not departed with but distinguished on thefacts. The judgment in Bank of India and another vs. K. Mohandasand others (supra) is clearly distinguishable and is not attracted.

19. Dr. Singhvi has placed much reliance on the judgment of thisCourt in National Insurance Company Limited and another vs.Kirpal Singh, (2014) 5 SCC 189. In the above case, this Court hadoccasion to consider the SVRS Scheme, 2004. Under the GeneralInsurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the eligibility of theScheme was confined to those employees who have attained the age of40 years and completed 10 years of qualifying service as on the date ofnotification. Clause 6 of Scheme, 2004 sub-clause 1(c) provided thatpension shall be payable as per the General Insurance (Employees’)Pension Scheme, 1995. The Scheme, which was considered in the above A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acase in Bank of Baroda(supra), is pari materia to the Scheme of theCentral Bank of India, 2001. We feel ourselves bound by judgment ofthis Court in Bank of Baroda vs. Ganpat Singh Deora (supra), whichjudgment is directly on the similar Regulations and the Scheme. Therebeing two Judge Bench judgment on the similar Regulations and Scheme,we are not inclined to accede to the request of the learned counsel forBthe respondent that the matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench toconsider the Bank of Baroda vs. Ganpat Singh Deora and NationalInsurance vs. Kirpal Singh. The judgment of two Judge Bench inNational Insurance vs. Kirpal Singh (supra) being on differentRegulations and Scheme, we rest our judgment following two JudgeCBench judgment of this Court in Bank of Baroda vs Ganpat SinghDeora (supra).

20. In view of what we have said above, we are of the view thatthe High Court has not correctly interpreted the Scheme and theRegulations. On the submission of the learned counsel for the respondentDin the facts of the present case that this Court may not interfere with theimpugned judgment since the respondent is waiting for the last 18 yearsto receive pension, we are of the view that when the Court has to examineinterpretation of a statutory Regulation, Scheme and the benefits to beextended to the employees, statutory regime in the Scheme has to beadhered to and with regard to the case of one individual, no exceptionEcan be made. We, thus, do not accept the above submission of the learnedcounsel for the respondent.

21. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this appeal is allowed,judgments of the High Court are set aside and the writ petition filed bythe respondent is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.F

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeal allowed.

G

H