Case: Bank of India &amp; Another Vs. K. Mohandas &amp; Others

and not what logically follows from it." 47. In Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111 , this Court held that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. 48. This Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. N.R. Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579 , emphasized that the Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which the reliance is placed. It was further observed that the judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes and the observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. The Court went on to say that circumstantial applicability, one additional or different fact may make a word of difference between conclusions in two cases. 49. It is true that the controversy in the case of Bank of Baroda arose out of the same voluntary retirement scheme with which we are concerned in this group of appeals. However, there is vital factual difference in that case and this group of appeals. Pertinently that was a case where the employee had completed only 13 years of service( not even 15 years of service much less 20 years service) although he completed 40 years of age at the time he offered for voluntary retirement. The employees application therein for voluntary retirement was accepted by the Bank of Baroda and he was paid all retiral benefits. However, his request for grant of pension in addition to the other retiral benefits was not acceded to by the bank. It was so because he had not completed even 15 years of service. The employee pursued industrial adjudicatory process for redressal of his grievance in respect of non-grant of pension by the bank. The employees claim was opposed by the Bank of Baroda contending that in terms of Regulations 14, 28 and 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, the employee was not entitled to pension. The observations made by this Court in Bank of Baroda which have been quoted above and relied upon by the banks in support of their contention have to be understood in the factual backdrop namely, that the employee had completed only 13 years of service and, was not eligible for the pension under the Pension Regulations,1995 and for the benefit of addition of five years to qualifying service under Regulation 29(5), an employee must have completed 20 years of service. The question therein was not identical in form with the question here to be decided. The following observations in paragraph 11 of the report in Bank of Baroda are significant: "......since both the Tribunal as well as the High Court appear not to have considered or taken note of the fact that the respondent was not eligible for pension as he had not completed 15 years of qualifying service...... ......." 50. The decision of this Court in Bank of Baroda is, thus, clearly distinguishable as the employee therein had not completed qualifying service much less 20 years of service for being eligible to the weightage under Regulation 29(5) and cannot be applied to the present controversy nor does that matter decide the question here to be decided in the present group of matters. 51. On behalf of banks it was submitted that the employees, having taken benefits under the scheme (VRS 2000), are estopped from raising any issue that their entitlement to pension would not be covered by amended Regulation 28. It was suggested that the employees having taken benefit of the scheme cannot insist for pension under Regulation 29(5). O.P. Swarnakar was relied upon in this regard wherein it has been held that an employee, having taken the ex-gratia payment, or any other benefit under the scheme cannot be allowed to resile from the scheme. 52. Insofaras the present group of appeals is concerned, the employees are not seeking to resile from the Scheme. They are actually seeking enforcement of the clause in the Scheme that provides that the optees will be eligible for pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995. According to them, they are entitled to the benefits of Regulation 29(5). In our considered view, plea of estoppel is devoid of any substance; as a matter of fact it does not arise at all in the facts and circumstances of the case.53. We hold, as it must be, that the employees who had completed 20 years of service and were pension optees and offered voluntary retirement under VRS 2000 and whose offers were accepted by the banks are entitled to addition of five years of notional service in calculating the length of service for the purposes of that Scheme as per Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. The contrary view expressed by some of the High Courts do not lay down the correct legal position. 54. The only question now remains to be seen is whether the concerned employees are entitled to interest on unpaid pension. 55. Although it has been held by us that the subject employees are entitled to the weightage in terms of Regulation 29(5) of Pension Regulations, 1995, but we are satisfied that any award of interest on unpaid pension would not be in the interest of justice. It is so because different High Courts did not have unanimous judicial opinion on the issue. Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court upheld the contention of the employees with regard to applicability of Regulation 29(5) to the optees who had completed 20 years of service while the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and a single Judge of the Kerala High Court took exactly an opposite view. The stance of the banks, although found not meritorious, cannot be said to be totally frivolous. We, accordingly, hold that the subject employees are not entitled to interest on unpaid pension.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]49. It is true that the controversy in the case of Bank of Baroda arose out of the same voluntary retirement scheme with which we are concerned in this group of appeals. However, there is vital factual difference in that case and this group of appeals. Pertinently that was a case where the employee had completed only 13 years of service( not even 15 years of service much less 20 years service) although he completed 40 years of age at the time he offered for voluntary retirement. The employees application therein for voluntary retirement was accepted by the Bank of Baroda and he was paid all retiral benefits. However, his request for grant of pension in addition to the other retiral benefits was not acceded to by the bank. It was so because he had not completed even 15 years of service. The employee pursued industrial adjudicatory process for redressal of his grievance in respect ofof pension by the bank. The employees claim was opposed by the Bank of Baroda contending that in terms of Regulations 14, 28 and 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, the employee was not entitled to pension. The observations made by this Court in Bank of Baroda which have been quoted above and relied upon by the banks in support of their contention have to be understood in the factual backdrop namely, that the employee had completed only 13 years of service and, was not eligible for the pension under the Pension Regulations,1995 and for the benefit of addition of five years to qualifying service under Regulation 29(5), an employee must have completed 20 years of service.The decision of this Court in Bank of Baroda is, thus, clearly distinguishable as the employee therein had not completed qualifying service much less 20 years of service for being eligible to the weightage under Regulation 29(5) and cannot be applied to the present controversy nor does that matter decide the question here to be decided in the present group of matters.Insofaras the present group of appeals is concerned, the employees are not seeking to resile from the Scheme. They are actually seeking enforcement of the clause in the Scheme that provides that the optees will be eligible for pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995. According to them, they are entitled to the benefits of Regulation 29(5). In our considered view, plea of estoppel is devoid of any substance; as a matter of fact it does not arise at all in the facts and circumstances of the case.53. We hold, as it must be, that the employees who had completed 20 years of service and were pension optees and offered voluntary retirement under VRS 2000 and whose offers were accepted by the banks are entitled to addition of five years of notional service in calculating the length of service for the purposes of that Scheme as per Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. The contrary view expressed by some of the High Courts do not lay down the correct legal position.Although it has been held by us that the subject employees are entitled to the weightage in terms of Regulation 29(5) of Pension Regulations, 1995, but we are satisfied that any award of interest on unpaid pension would not be in the interest of justice. It is so because different High Courts did not have unanimous judicial opinion on the issue. Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court upheld the contention of the employees with regard to applicability of Regulation 29(5) to the optees who had completed 20 years of service while the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and a single Judge of the Kerala High Court took exactly an opposite view. The stance of the banks, although found not meritorious, cannot be said to be totally frivolous. We, accordingly, hold that the subject employees are not entitled to interest on unpaid pension.