IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.7110 and 6847 of 1999 WRIT PETITION NO : 7110 of 1999 Between: Krishna Bhadur Khadka, S/o Nalindra Bahadur R/o Gaagel Phedi Panchayat Ward No.7,Sakhintar (post) Sankhu Kthmandu Nepal, C/o Secretary Union Bank of India Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd 45, Ist Foor, Unity House, Abids, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union Bank of India, Union Bank Bhavan 710, Back Bay Reclamation, Mumbai. 2 The General Manager, (Personnel) Union Bank of India Union Bank Bhavan, 710, Back Bay Reclamation, Mumbai 400 021 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased o to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ declarig the letters dt:29-4-97 bearing Ref No.DP:PC;973:96 and letter dated 14-03-98 bearing Ref No.DP:PENSION/914/98 issued by the respondents declining to consider the case of the petitioner for the pension scheme as arbitrary,illegal,discriminationatory Violative of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14,19,21 and 300(A) of constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents herein to admit the case of the petitioner for the pension scheme in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.NALIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C.R.SRIDHARAN WRIT PETITION NO : 6847 of 1999 Between: Smt. V. Subba Ratnamma, W/o. Late V.L.N. Murthy C/o. Smt. V. Krishnaveni, Union Bank of India, Sri Krishna Complex, Old Bus Stand, Cuddapah. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union Bank of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 710, Back Bay Reclamation, MUMBAI-400 021. rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director. 2 The Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Department of Personnel Terminal Benefits Section, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, MUMBAI-400 021. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a Writ declaring the letter dated 21-06- 1997 bearing Ref.No.DP.P.C.2050:97 issued by the respondent No.2 herein refusing to consider the case of the petitioner for the pension scheme as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, violative of principles of natural justice and in violation of articles 14, 19, 21 and 300 A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein to admit the case of the petitioner for the pension scheme in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.NALIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C.R.SRIDHARAN The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.7110 AND 6847 OF 1999 COMMON ORDER: In both these writ petitions, failure on the part of the respondents-bank in extending to the petitioners the benefit of pension under the pension regulations, is under challenge and, as such, are being disposed of by a common order. It would suffice for the purpose of both the writ petitions if the facts in W.P.No.7110 of 1999 are taken note of. The petitioner worked as an Armed Guard with the respondent-bank at Guntur and retired from service on 01.06.1992. After his retirement, he claims to have shifted his family to his native place in Nepal. He contends that he came to know in February, 1997 that a pension scheme was introduced by the respondents-bank whereunder the bank had offered pension; that he had immediately submitted his application dated 22.02.1997 to the branch manager of the respondent-bank, but the respondent-bank did not approve his application on the ground that he did not make his application before the cut-off date i.e., 26.01.1996. Petitioner would contend that failure on his part to submit the application on or before 25.01.1996 was neither willful nor deliberate and it was only because he had left India to reside at his native place in Nepal. Petitioner would contend that he was not aware of the pension scheme at all. He would refer to the case of one Sri D.B.Thapa who retired as an Armed Guard from R.P.Road Branch at Secunderabad and who, according to the petitioner, had submitted his application after 25.01.1996 but the respondents had still considered his case favourably. In their counter affidavit, the respondents would deny the fact that Sri D.B.Thapa had submitted his application after the cut- off date on 25.01.1996. They would submit that Sri D.B.Thapa had submitted his application well before the notified date. They would further contend that since the regulations specifically prescribe that the application should be made within 120 days from the notified date of 29.09.1995 i.e. before 26.01.1996, applications made thereafter for being given the benefit of the pension cannot be considered. Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the respondent-bank ought to have intimated the petitioner, who had already retired from service, about introduction of such a scheme and that their failure to do so cannot be put against the petitioner for denying him the benefits under the pension scheme. On the other hand, Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned Counsel for the respondent-bank, would submit that the pension scheme is statutory in nature; that the scheme specifically provides for options to be exercised within 120 days from the notified date and that only such applications which were submitted within the notified date were alone required to be considered and not of those who had submitted their applications thereafter. Learned Counsel would submit that the subject-matter of this writ petition is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. MANJEET {2008 (2) L.L.N. 644}. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 19 (1) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Board of Directors of the Union of India, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government, made the Union Bank of India Employees’ (Pension) Regulations, 1993. Under Regulation 1 (ii) thereof, the Regulations are deemed to have come into force on the date of its publication in the official gazette. Regulation 2 of the 1993 Regulations relates to definitions and thereunder “notified date” has been defined to mean the date on which the Regulations are published in the official gazette. Sri C.R.Sridharan, learned Counsel placed before this Court a copy of the Official Gazette wherein the Regulations were notified. The date of publication of the 1993 Regulations in the Official Gazette is 25.09.1995. Chapter II of the Said Regulations relates to application and eligibility, and under Regulation 3 (1)(b), the Regulations shall apply to employees who have exercised their option in writing, within 120 days from the notified date, to become member of the fund. The Pension Regulations, made in exercise of the powers conferred under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 are statutory in nature and have the force of law. The statutorily prescribed cut off date thereunder is 120 days from the notified date i.e., the date on which the Regulations were published in the Official Gazette. Since the date of publication of the Regulations in the Official Gazette, is 25.09.1995, 120 days thereafter ends on 26.01.1996 on or before which date these statutory regulations required the option to be exercised. In STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. MANJEET {2008 (2) L.L.N. 664} wherein similar pension regulations applicable to the employees of State Bank of Patiala fell for consideration, the Supreme Court, following its earlier judgment in PANKAJ JAIN AGENCIES v. UNION OF INDIA {(1994) 5 S.C.C. 198), held that certain cases where the parent statute is silent but the subordinate legislation itself prescribes the manner of its publication, such a mode of publication may be sufficient, if reasonable and that publication in the official gazette satisfies this test. Admittedly, in the present case the Regulations have been notified in the official gazette. Since there is no challenge in this writ petition to the validity of the Regulations or to the prescription of the cut off date thereunder, it must be held that the cut off date of 26.01.1996 requires compliance and since neither of the petitioners herein have, admittedly, submitted their options before the cut off date i.e. 26.01.1996, the action of the respondents in denying them the benefit of pension under the Pension Regulations cannot be faulted. As the allegation that such a benefit was extended to Sri D.B.Thapa has been denied by the respondents, this Court would not go into these disputed questions of fact. Even assuming that Sri D.B.Thapa was given the benefit of pension, under the pension regulations, even though he applied after the cut off date, that would amount to extending him the said benefit illegally. It must not be lost sight of that Sri D.B.Thapa is not arrayed as a respondent in this writ petition, and in his absence it would be wholly inappropriate to examine the legality or otherwise of his being extended the benefit of pension under the Pension Regulations. It is also well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality [CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION V. JAGJIT SINGH, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 708]. Even if it is presumed that the respondents had passed an illegal order in case of Sri D.B.Thapa, that would not justify the petitioner claiming parity or seeking a direction from this Court that he should also be given a similar benefit. Both the writ petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 04.07.2008 GS