//
you're reading...
legal issues

Service matter – VRS scheme 2000 – Pension Who completed 20 years of service are entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29 by the date of VRS – Regulations 28 , 29 and Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 – High court relying on earlier DB bench judgement of Punjab National Bank dismissed the writ petition as the employees who took voluntary service not completed the requisite period for granting pension – basing on that judgment Bank filed this appeal – Apex court held that Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 provides that if broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year. Therefore, all the respondents-writ petitioners having completed more than 19 years and 6 months of service in the Bank, they are to be treated to have completed 20 years of service. The aforesaid question was neither raised nor decided in the case of ‘Bank of Baroda’ or ‘Bank of India’. In view of the aforesaid fact, the appellant-Bank cannot derive the benefit of the decision of this Court in Bank of Baroda as the employees who were parties before the Court in the said case had not completed 20 years of service. As per the decision of this Court in Bank of India, the respondents-writ petitioners having completed 20 years of service are entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29.In view of the finding recorded above, the appeals do not have merit in reference with the impugned judgment,they are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. = STATE OF BANK OF PATIALA … APPELLANT VERSUS PRITAM SINGH BEDI & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41751

 Service matter – VRS scheme 2000 – Pension  Who completed  20  years  of  service  are entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29 by the date of VRS – Regulations 28 , 29 and Regulation 18 of  the  Pension  Regulations,  1995 –  High court relying on earlier DB bench judgement of Punjab National Bank dismissed the writ petition  as the employees who took voluntary service not completed the requisite period for granting pension  – basing on that judgment Bank filed this appeal – Apex court held  that  Regulation 18 of  the  Pension  Regulations,  1995  provides  that  if broken period is more than six months, it shall  be  treated  as  one  year. Therefore, all the respondents-writ petitioners having completed  more  than 19 years and 6 months of service in the Bank, they  are  to  be  treated  to have completed 20 years of  service.  The  aforesaid  question  was  neither raised nor decided in the case of ‘Bank of Baroda’ or ‘Bank of India’. In view of the aforesaid fact, the appellant-Bank  cannot  derive  the benefit of the decision of this Court in Bank of  Baroda  as  the  employees who were parties before the Court in the said  case  had  not  completed  20 years of service. As per the decision of this Court in Bank  of  India,  the respondents-writ petitioners  having  completed  20  years  of  service  are entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29.In view of the finding recorded above, the appeals do not  have  merit in reference with the impugned judgment,they  are,  accordingly,  dismissed. No costs. =

A number of employees  who  were  allowed  to  retire  from  the  Bank

pursuant to  scheme  called  State  Bank  of  Patiala  Voluntary  Retirement

Scheme, 2000(herein  after  referred  to  as  the  “Scheme”)  introduced  by

Circular dated 20th January, 2001, and had completed  more  than  19  and  ½

years of service, in whose favour pension was not released by  the  Bank  in

accordance with the State Bank of Patiala (Employees)  Pension  Regulations,

1995 (hereinafter referred  to  as  the  “Regulations,  1995”).  They  moved

before the High Court for direction to  the  Bank  and  its  authorities  to

release pension in their favour in accordance with the  Scheme. =

The High Court by the impugned judgment referring to earlier  Division

Bench decision of the High Court in Dharam  Pal  Singh  v.  Punjab  National

Bank, 2008 (1) PLR 745 held that the pension was  payable  under  Regulation

28 and that Regulation 29 will not apply. 

The Division  Bench  of  the  High Court further held as follows:

           “12.  A perusal of the Regulation 28 shows that on attaining the

           age of superannuation specified in  Regulations  or  settlements

           pension is payable. The age of superannuation has been laid down

           in Service Regulations which is said to  be  60  years  now  and

           earlier it was 58 years.  But  under  the  Voluntary  Retirement

           Scheme, which according to the writ petitioners will be  at  par

           with Settlement, the requirement is 15 years of  service  or  40

           years of age, which admittedly the writ petitioners  had.  Under

           Regulation 32 of the pension is payable on premature  retirement

           on account of orders of the Bank if the employee  was  otherwise

           entitled  to  pension/superannuation  on  that  day.  Read  with

           Regulations 14 and 28, the said age is 10 years and if read with

           the Scheme, it is 15 years of age or 40 years of service and  in

           either case the employees were covered by  the  pension  scheme.

           The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Regulation  29  relating  to

           voluntary retirement was not  applicable.  Thus,  contention  on

           behalf of the Bank that Regulation  29  applied  and  therefore,

           pension payable only after 20 years service cannot be accepted.”=

Apex court held that

 

The respondents completed more than 10 years of service  in  the  Bank

on the date of  retirement;  therefore,  they  fulfill  the  requirement  of

qualifying service as per Regulation 14.

23.   It has not been disputed by appellant-Bank  that  the  respondents  in

all the appeals have completed much more than 19 years 6 months  of  service

in the Bank. For example, respondent No.1-Prakash Chand in  C.A.  No.173  of

2010 had joined the Bank on 4th May, 1981 and relieved on 31st March,  2001.

Thus, he had completed 19  years,  10  months  and  28  days  of  qualifying

service on the date of relieving from service.

24.   Regulation 18 of  the  Pension  Regulations,  1995  provides  that  if

broken period is more than six months, it shall  be  treated  as  one  year.

Therefore, all the respondents-writ petitioners having completed  more  than

19 years and 6 months of service in the Bank, they  are  to  be  treated  to

have completed 20 years of  service.  The  aforesaid  question  was  neither

raised nor decided in the case of ‘Bank of Baroda’ or ‘Bank of India’.

25.   In view of the aforesaid fact, the appellant-Bank  cannot  derive  the

benefit of the decision of this Court in Bank of  Baroda  as  the  employees

who were parties before the Court in the said  case  had  not  completed  20

years of service. As per the decision of this Court in Bank  of  India,  the

respondents-writ petitioners  having  completed  20  years  of  service  are

entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29.

26.   In view of the finding recorded above, the appeals do not  have  merit

in reference with the impugned judgment,they  are,  accordingly,  dismissed.

No costs.

2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41751

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,728,416 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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

Join 1,854 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com