//
you're reading...
legal issues

1995 (for short ‘Regulations 1995’), the Canara Bank Pension Regulations, the legality of the claim for pension in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund (for short ‘CPF’) of some officers of the Canara Bank who had resigned and stood relieved from their respective posts prior to 3.6.1993, i.e. prior to signing of the Statutory Settlement dated 29.10.1993 under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Joint Note dated 29.10.1993, followed by the Canara Bank Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short ‘Regulations 1995’), which was notified in the Gazette of India on 29.9.1995.= The appellants, when tendered their letters of resignation, were governed by the Regulations 1979. Regulation 20(2) of Regulations 1979 dealt with resignation from service and they tendered their resignation in the light of that provision. We are of the view that the appellants have failed to show any pre-existing rights in their favour either in the Statutory Settlement/Joint Note dated 29.10.1993 or under the Regulations 1995. Appellants had resigned from service prior to 1.11.1993 and, therefore, were not covered by the statutory settlement, Joint Note dated 29.10.1993 and the Regulations 1995. They could not establish any pre- existing legal, statutory or fundamental rights in their favour to claim the benefit of Regulations 1995. Consequently, the reliance placed by the appellants either on Regulation 29 or Regulation 22 in support of their contentions, cannot be accepted, since they are not covered by the scheme of pension introduced by the banks with effect from 1.11.1993.

REPORTABLE

Canara Bank Home Loan Festival

Canara Bank Home Loan Festival (Photo credit: Tricia Wang 王圣捷)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 7188-7191  OF 2012

[Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 30983-30986 of 2008]

M.R. Prabhakar and Others                                .. Appellants

Versus

Canara Bank and Others                                   .. Respondents

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos._7185-7186  of 2012

[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30975-30977 of 2008]

 

Civil Appeal Nos. 7192-7193 of 2012

[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30987-30988 of 2008]

 

Civil Appeal Nos. 7194-7195 of 2012

[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30989-30990 of 2008]

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

 

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

 

 

1.    Leave granted.

2.    We may, for the disposal of these appeals,  deal  with  the  facts  in

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30983-30986 of 2008, since  common

questions arise for consideration in all these appeals.

3.    We are, in these appeals, concerned with the  legality  of  the  claim

for pension in lieu of Contributory Provident  Fund  (for  short  ‘CPF’)  of

some officers of the Canara Bank who had resigned and  stood  relieved  from

their respective posts prior to 3.6.1993,  i.e.  prior  to  signing  of  the

Statutory Settlement dated 29.10.1993 under  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,

1947, the Joint Note dated 29.10.1993, followed by the Canara  Bank  Pension

Regulations, 1995 (for short ‘Regulations 1995’), which was notified in  the

Gazette of India on 29.9.1995.

4.    The learned single Judge of the High  Court  held  in  favour  of  the

appellants but the Division Bench of the High Court held otherwise.   Hence,

these appeals.

5.    We may, as already indicated, refer to the facts of the case in  civil

appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30983-30986 of  2008.   The  appellants’

date of appointment and their resignation are as under:

 

|Position of the         |Date of Appointment     |Date of Resignation   |

|Petitioner as per Cause |                        |                      |

|List                    |                        |                      |

|M.R. Prabhakar          |27-05-1970              |04-06-1991            |

|S. Ananda Rao           |09-09-1970              |22-09-1990            |

|N. Anand                |17-12-1969              |19-04-1993            |

|S. K. Mehta             |15-12-1965              |01-05-1991            |

|N.V. Rangaswamy         |24-07-1968              |09-01-1991            |

|S. Sathyanarayan        |07-0701970              |03-06-1993            |

|K. S. Seshadri          |18-02-1970              |20-07-1992            |

|(since deceased)        |                        |                      |

|K. Suresh Rao           |02-05-1970              |30-06-1990            |

|P. Govinda Pai          |03-04-1968              |30-03-1988            |

|   10. K. V. Puranik    |01-02-1963              |24-07-1986            |

 

The above mentioned appellants  had  submitted  their  resignations  between

24.7.1986 and 3.6.1993 prior to the  signing  of  the  Statutory  Settlement

dated 29.10.1993 under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Joint  Note

dated 29.10.1993, with regard to the introduction of ‘pension’ as  a  second

retiral benefit in  lieu  of  CPF.   Appellants,  placing  reliance  on  the

various  provisions  of  Regulations  1995,  submitted  that   the   pension

regulations were introduced as an additional  benefit  to  the  serving  and

retired employees.  It was pointed out that an  employee  who  had  resigned

from the bank  was  not  disentitled  to  pension  except  by  operation  of

Regulation  22.   If  this  regulation  was  held  operative   against   the

appellants, it would result in absurd consequences since  by  forfeiture  of

entire past service, such employees would not be entitled to any  pensionary

benefits including gratuity and provident fund.   Further,  it  was  pointed

out that Regulation 22 admittedly never  existed  when  the  appellants  had

submitted their resignation letters  and,  therefore,  the  said  regulation

could  not  operate  to  disentitle  the  appellants  from  any   pensionary

benefits.  Further, it was also pointed out when  appellants  had  submitted

their letters of resignation prior to 1.1.1993  the  concept  of  ‘voluntary

retirement’ did not exist under the Bank  Officers  Regulations,  1979  (for

short ‘Regulations 1979’).   Regulation 1979, it was  pointed  out,  neither

defined the expression ‘resignation’ legally nor the  expression  ‘voluntary

retirement’.  In other words, the  concept  of  ‘voluntary  retirement’  was

required to be defined only because of the  introduction  of  pension  as  a

retiral benefit with effect from 29.9.1995.

 

6.    Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted  that,  in  the

absence of legal definition of ‘voluntary retirement’ or in the  absence  of

any legally prescribed consequence of ‘resignation’, it  may  be  understood

in the sense of ‘voluntary retirement’ of service.   Further,  it  was  also

urged that the conceptual difference between  ‘resignation’  and  ‘voluntary

retirement’ comes in only if it is made by legal  prescription  and  not  in

the ordinary sense as  perceived  in  the  realm  of  appointment.   Learned

counsel  also  pointed  out  that  pension  regulations  must  be  read  and

interpreted keeping in mind its intended object and  cannot  be  applied  to

deprive those employees who left services honourably either on  the  grounds

of superannuation, resignation or even pre-mature retirement.   Considerable

reliance was placed on a recent judgment of this Court  in  Sheelkumar  Jain

v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others  (2011)  12  SCC  197  and

submitted that the principle laid down in that judgment  would  squarely  be

applicable to the facts of the present case.  Further, it was  also  pointed

out that the beneficial construction placed by this  Court  in  Madan  Singh

Shekhawat v. Union of India and Others (1996) 6 SCC 459 is  also  applicable

by way of extending the pensionary benefits to the appellants.

 

7.    Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents  banks  submitted

that the High  Court  had  rightly  denied  the  claim  of  pension  to  the

appellants who  had  resigned  from  their  respective  service  before  the

settlement reached between All India Bank  Officers  Federation  and  Indian

Bank Association (for short ‘IBA’)  and  that  Regulations  1995  would  not

apply to the appellants.  Further, it was pointed out  that  the  appellants

had resigned prior to  1.1.1993  and  were  not  covered  by  the  Statutory

Settlement or the Joint Note dated 29.10.1993 and the Regulations 1995.   It

was pointed out that  the  reliance  placed  by  the  appellants  either  on

Regulation  29  or  Regulation  22  in  support  of  their  contentions  was

completely misplaced since the appellants were not covered by the scheme  of

pension introduced by the  respective  banks  with  effect  from  1.11.1993.

Learned counsel appearing for the banks submitted that the judgment of  this

Court in UCO Bank and Others  v.  Sanwar  Mal  (2004)  4  SCC  412  squarely

applies to the facts of the present case.   In  that  case,  the  very  same

regulation came up for interpretation and the identical reliefs sought  for,

which were rejected by the Court.   Further, it was also  pointed  out  that

Sheelkumar Jain’s case (supra) was interpreting an  insurance  scheme  which

is, not comparable with the Regulations 1995 applicable to the banks.

 

8.    The appellants, in these two main appeals were officers of the  Canara

Bank, who had resigned and stood  relieved  from  their  respective  service

between 24.7.1986 and  3.6.1993.   IBA,  representing  58  banks  and  their

workmen had entered into a Memorandum  of  Settlement  on  29.10.1993  under

Section 2(p) and Section 18(1) of the Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  read

with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957.   During  the

course of negotiations of service conditions of  the  workmen  employees  in

February 1990, IBA agreed to introduce a pension scheme  in  banks  for  the

workmen employees in lieu of employers’ contribution to the provident  fund.

The pension scheme agreed to by IBA was to  be  broadly  based  on  Central

Government/Reserve Bank of India pattern, details of the scheme were  worked

out later. A Joint Note was also made with regard  to  the  introduction  of

pension as a second retiral benefit in lieu  of  CPF.   Clause  (4)  of  the

Joint Note reads as follows:

“(iv) The Pension  Scheme  will  also  be  extended  to  retired

Officers’ who retired on or after 1.1.1986.  They will be entitled for

monthly pension as well as  commutation  facility  as  from  1.1.1993.

Those officers who avail of the Pension Scheme  will  be  required  to

refund Bank’s contribution to the Provident Fund with interest thereon

drawn by them together with simple interest at 6%  from  the  date  of

withdrawal of the Provident Fund to the date of refund.”

 

9.    In furtherance of  the  Statutory  Settlement  and  Joint  Note  dated

29.10.1993, draft of the Pension Regulations  was  negotiated  and  settled.

Clause 17(1), so  far  as  it  is  relevant  for  the  present  purpose,  is

extracted hereunder:

“17(1)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  the   Service

Regulations/Service Rules an employee may be permitted to  voluntarily

retire after he has completed 20 years of  qualifying  service,  after

given three months’ notice in writing to the competent authority.”

 

 

10.   Later, in exercise of the powers  conferred  by  Clause  (f)  of  sub-

section (2)  of  Section  19  of  the  Banking  Companies  (Acquisition  and

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Board of Directors  of  the  Canara

bank, after consultation with the RBI and with the previous sanction of  the

Central Government, made the regulations  called  Canara  Bank  (Employees’)

Pension  Regulations,  1995.   The  same  were  made   applicable   to   the

employees’/officers and were notified in the Gazette of India on  29.9.1995.

Chapter II of the Regulations deals with the application  and  eligibility,

the operative portion of Regulation 3(1)(a) to 3(1)(c)reads as under:

“3.  Application: These regulations  shall  apply  to  employees

who,-

 

 

(1) (a) were in the service of the Bank on or after the 1st  day

of January 1986 but had retired before  the  1st  day  of

November, 1993; and

 

 

(b)    exercise an option in writing within one hundred and

twenty days from the notified date to  become  member  of

the Fund; and

 

 

(c)     refund within sixty days after the expiry of the said

period of one hundred and twenty days specified in clause

(b) the entire amount of the Bank’s contribution  to  the

Provident  Fund  including   interest   accrued   thereon

together with a further simple interest at  the  rate  of

six percent per annum on the said amount from the date of

settlement of the Provident Fund account till the date of

refund of the aforesaid amount to the Bank; or

 

 

XXX  XXX        XXX

XXX  XXX        XXX”

 

 

11.   Regulation 22, which finds a place in Chapter IV of  the  Regulations,

reads as follows:

 

“22 Forfeiture of service –

 

 

(1). Resignation or dismissal or removal or  termination  of  an

employee  from  the  service  of  the  Bank  shall  entail

forfeiture of his entire  past  service  and  consequently

shall not qualify for pensionary benefits;

 

 

(2)   An interruption in the service of a Bank employee  entails

forfeiture of his past service, expect  in  the  following

cases, namely :-

 

 

a) authorised leave of absence;

 

 

b)  suspension,  where  it  is  immediately   followed   by

reinstatement, whether in the same or a different  post,

or where the bank  employee  dies  or  is  permitted  to

retire or is retired on attaining the age of  compulsory

retirement while under suspension;

 

 

c) transfer to non-qualifying service in  an  establishment

under the control of the  Government  or  Bank  if  such

transfer has been ordered by a  competent  authority  in

the public interest;

 

 

d) joining time while on transfer from one post to another.

 

 

 

 

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained  in  sub-regulation  (2),

the   appointing   authority   may,   by   order,   commute

retrospectively the periods of  absence  without  leave  as

extraordinary leave.

 

 

(4) (a) In the absence of a specific indication to the  contrary

in the  service  record,  an  interruption  between  two

spells of service rendered by a bank employee  shall  be

treated  as  automatically   condoned   and   the   pre-

interruption service treated as qualifying service;

 

 

(b) Nothing in clause (a) shall apply to interruption caused

by resignation, dismissal or Removal from the service or

for participation in a strike:

 

 

Provided that before making  an  entry  in  the  service

record of the Bank employee regarding forfeiture of past

service because  of  his  participation  in  strike,  an

opportunity of representation may be given to such  bank

employees.”

 

12.   Classes of Pension are dealt with in Chapter  V  of  the  Regulations.

Regulation 28 deals with  superannuation  pension  and  the  same  reads  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 Settlement.”

 

29 Pension on Voluntary Retirement –

1) On or after the 1st day of November 1993, at any time  after

the an employee has completed  twenty  years  of  qualifying

service he may, by giving notice  of  not  less  than  three

months in writing to the appointing 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  public  sector

undertaking  or  company  or  institution  or  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.

 

 

2.   The  notice  of  voluntary  retirement  given  under  sub   –

regulation (1) shall require  acceptance  by  the  appointing

authority:

 

 

Provided that where the appointing authority does not  refuse

to grant the permission for retirement before the  expiry  of

the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall

become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.

 

 

3. (a) An employee referred to in sub regulation (1)  may  make  a

request  in  writing  to  the  writing  to  the  appointing

authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of  less

than three months giving reasons therefore :

 

 

(b) On receipt of a request under clause (a),  the  appointing

authority  may,  subject  to  the  provisions  of   sub   –

regulation (2), consider such request for  the  curtailment

of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it

is satisfied that the curtailment of the period  of  notice

will  not  cause  any  administrative  inconvenience,   the

appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of

three months on the condition that the employee  shall  not

apply for commutation of a part of his pension  before  the

expiry of the notice of three months.

 

 

4.  An employee, who has elected to retire under  this  regulation

and  has  given  necessary  notice  to  that  effect  to  the

appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his

notice except with the specific approval of such authority:

 

 

Provided that the request for such withdrawal shall  be  made

before the intended date of his retirement.

 

 

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 three years  and  it  does  not  take  him

beyond the date of superannuation.

 

 

6. The pension of an employee retiring under this regulation shall

be based on the average emoluments as  defined  under  clause

(d) of regulation 2 of these Regulations and the increase not

exceeding five years in his  qualifying  service,  shall  not

entitle him any notional fixation of pay for the  purpose  of

calculating his pension.”

 

 

13.   In order to appreciate the scope of the above  mentioned  Regulations,

it is necessary to refer  to  some  of  the  definition  clauses.  The  word

‘retire’ is defined in Regulation 2(x) of the Regulations 1995, which  reads

as under:

“2(x) “retired” includes deemed to have retired under clause(l).”

 

The word ‘retirement’ is defined under Regulation 2(y)  of  the  Regulations

1995, which reads as follows:

“2(y) “retirement” means cessation from bank’s service,-

a) On attaining the age of superannuation specified in Service

Regulations or 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.”

 

14.   The appellants, in our view, did not  retire  from  the  service,  but

resigned from the service.  Appellants tried to build up a case that in  the

absence of a legal definition of ‘voluntary retirement’ or  in  the  absence

of legally prescribed consequences of ‘resignation’, it must  be  understood

in the sense of voluntary relinquishment of service.   It  was  pointed  out

that  there  can  be  no  distinction  between  ‘voluntary  retirement’  and

‘resignation’ and those expressions are to be understood in  their  ordinary

literal sense.

 

15.   We  find  it  difficult  to  accept  the  contentions  raised  by  the

appellants.   There  is  no  ambiguity  in  the  definition   clause   under

Regulation  2(y)  which  has  statutorily  brought   in   the   ‘voluntarily

retirement’ as ‘retirement’.  Though the concept of  ‘resignation’  is  well

known in Service Jurisprudence, the same has not  been  brought  within  the

definition of  ‘retirement’  under  Regulation  2(y).   Further,  the  words

‘retired’ and ‘retirement’ have some resemblance in their meanings, but  not

‘resignation’.   Regulation  3(1)(a)  specifically   used   the   expression

‘retirement’ and the expression  ‘resignation’  has  not  been  incorporated

either in the definition clause or  in  Regulation  3(1)(a).   We  need  not

labour much on this issue, since the difference between these  two  concepts

‘resignation’  and  ‘retirement’,  in  the  context  of  the  same   Banking

Regulations 1995, came up for consideration before this Court in Sanwar  Mal

(supra), wherein this Court has distinguished the  words  ‘resignation’  and

‘retirement’ and held as follows:

“9. ……… The words “resignation” and “retirement” carry different

meanings in common parlance. An employee can resign at  any  point  of

time, even on the second day of his appointment but  in  the  case  of

retirement he retires only after attaining the age  of  superannuation

or in the case of voluntary retirement  on  completion  of  qualifying

service. The effect of resignation and retirement to the  extent  that

there is severance of employment but in service jurisprudence both the

expressions are understood differently.  Under  the  Regulations,  the

expressions “resignation” and  “retirement”  have  been  employed  for

different purpose and carry different  meanings.  The  pension  scheme

herein is based on  actuarial  calculation;  it  is  a  self-financing

scheme, which does not depend upon budgetary support and  consequently

it constitutes a complete  code  by  itself.  The  scheme  essentially

covers retirees as the credit balance to their provident fund  account

is  larger  as  compared  to  employees  who  resigned  from  service.

Moreover, resignation brings about complete cessation  of  master  and

servant  relationship  whereas  voluntary  retirement  maintains   the

relationship for the purposes of grant of retiral benefits, in view of

the past service. Similarly, acceptance of  resignation  is  dependent

upon discretion of the employer whereas retirement  is  completion  of

service in terms of regulations/rules framed by the bank.  Resignation

can be tendered irrespective of the length of service whereas  in  the

case of voluntary retirement, the employee has to complete  qualifying

service for retiral benefits. …………”

(emphasis added)

 

In the above mentioned judgment, this Court has also  held  that  there  are

different yardsticks and criteria for submitting the resignation,  vis-à-vis

voluntary retirement and exceptions thereof.  In that context, the scope  of

Regulation 22 of Regulations 1995 was also considered and the Court held  as

follows:

 

 

9.   …………….In   our   view,   Regulation   22    provides    for

disqualification of employees who have resigned from service  and  for

those who have been dismissed or removed from service.  Hence,  we  do

not find any  merit  in  the  arguments  advanced  on  behalf  of  the

respondent that Regulation 22  makes  an  arbitrary  and  unreasonable

classification repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution by  keeping

out such class of employees. The view we have taken  is  supported  by

the judgment of this Court in the case of Reserve Bank  of  India  v.

Cecil Dennis Solomon (2004) 9 SCC 461. Before concluding we may  state

that Clause 22 is not in the nature of penalty  as  alleged.  It  only

disentitles an employee who has resigned from service from becoming  a

member of  the  Fund.  Such  employees  have  received  their  retiral

benefits earlier. The pension scheme, as stated above,  only  provides

for a second retiral benefit. Hence there is no  question  of  penalty

being imposed on such employees as alleged. The  pension  scheme  only

provides for an avenue for investment to retirees. They  are  provided

avenue to put in their savings and as a term  or  condition  which  is

more in the nature of an eligibility criteria the  scheme  disentitles

such category of employees out of it.”

 

 

16.   We may indicate that in Sanwar Mal  (supra),  the  employee,  who  was

working on Class III  post,  resigned  from  the  service  of  UCO  Bank  on

25.2.1988 after giving one month’s notice and also  accepted  his  provident

fund without protest.  On coming into force of the Regulations 1995,  Sanwar

Mal opted for pension scheme.  Since Sanwar Mal had  resigned  in  the  year

1988, UCO Bank declined its option for admitting him  as  a  member  of  the

fund.

 

17.   This Court, as already  indicated,  after  referring  to  the  various

provisions of the Regulations 1995 and after examining the  meaning  of  the

expressions ‘resignation’ and ‘retirement’, held that  since  Regulation  22

provided for disqualification of employees who had resigned, such  employees

could not claim membership of the fund.

 

18.   Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants  have  placed  heavy

reliance on Sheelkumar Jain (supra) and submitted that in the light of  that

judgment,  the  decision   rendered   in   Sanwar   Mal   (supra)   requires

reconsideration. We find it difficult to accept  the  contention  raised  by

the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

 

19.   We may point out in  Sheelkumar  Jain  (supra)  that  this  Court  was

dealing with an insurance scheme  and  not  the  pension  scheme,  which  is

applicable in the banking sector.  The provisions of  both  the  scheme  and

the Regulation are not pari  materia.   In  Sheelkumar  Jain  case  (supra),

while referring to Para 5, this Court came to the conclusion that  the  same

does not make distinction between ‘resignation’ and  ‘voluntary  retirement’

and it only provides that an employee who wants to leave or discontinue  his

service amounts  to  ‘resignation’  or  ‘voluntary  retirement’.    Whereas,

Regulation 20(2) of the Canara  Bank  (Officers)  Service  Regulations  1979

applicable to banks, had specifically referred to the  words  ‘resignation’,

unlike Para 5 of the Insurance Rules. Further, it is also to be noted  that,

in that judgment, this Court in Para 30 held that the  Court  will  have  to

construe the statutory provisions in each  case  to  find  out  whether  the

termination  of  service  of  an  employee  was  a  termination  by  way  of

resignation or a termination by way of voluntary retirement.

 

20.   The appellants, when  tendered  their  letters  of  resignation,  were

governed by the Regulations 1979.   Regulation  20(2)  of  Regulations  1979

dealt with resignation from service and they tendered their  resignation  in

the light of that provision.  We are of the view that  the  appellants  have

failed to show any  pre-existing  rights  in  their  favour  either  in  the

Statutory Settlement/Joint Note dated 29.10.1993 or  under  the  Regulations

1995.   Appellants  had  resigned  from  service  prior  to  1.11.1993  and,

therefore, were not covered by the statutory settlement,  Joint  Note  dated

29.10.1993 and the Regulations 1995.  They  could  not  establish  any  pre-

existing legal, statutory or fundamental rights in  their  favour  to  claim

the benefit of Regulations 1995.  Consequently, the reliance placed  by  the

appellants either on Regulation 29 or Regulation  22  in  support  of  their

contentions, cannot be accepted, since they are not covered  by  the  scheme

of pension introduced by the banks with effect from 1.11.1993.

 

21.   We, therefore, find no  merit  in  these  appeals  and  the  same  are

dismissed, with no order as to costs.

 

 

……………………………….J.

(K.S. Radhakrishnan)

 

 

 

..………………………………J.

(Dipak Misra)

New Delhi,

October 3, 2012

 

About these ads

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 468,652 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 466 other followers

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 466 other followers