Case: CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA &amp; ORS Vs. TARA CHAND

amendment made provision for situations similar to the one in the instant case. 32. In the absence of any particular provision for payment of pension to those who opted for BOBEVRS-2001 other than Regulation 11(ii) of the Scheme, we are once again left to fall back on the Pension Regulations, 1995, and the amended provisions of Regulation 28 which brings within the scope of Superannuation Pension employees who opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which will be clear from the Explanatory Memorandum. However, the period of qualifying service has been retained as 15 years for those opting for BOBEVRS-2001 and is treated differently from premature retirement where the minimum period of qualifying service has been fixed at 10 years in keeping with Regulation 14 of the Pension Regulations, 1995. 33. We are, therefore, of the view that not having completed the required length of qualifying service as provided under Regulation 28 of the 1995 Regulations, the respondent was not eligible for pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995, of the appellant Bank.? 15. The above judgment was subsequently followed in Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank and another vs. Dharam Pal Singh and Punjab National Bank and others vs. Ram Kishan (supra).16. The judgment on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent is Bank of India and another vs. K. Mohandas and others (supra). The issue arose for consideration in 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) who had opted for voluntary retirement under VRS 2000 are entitled to addition of five years of notional service in calculating the length of service for the purpose of the said Scheme as per Regulation 29(5) of Pension Regulations, 1995??17. In the above case, the Scheme was noted as VRS 2000. Under the aforesaid Scheme eligibility was to employee who had rendered minimum of 15 years of service or completed 40 years of age. In the above case, the judgment of this Court in Bank of Baroda and others vs. Ganpat Singh Deora (supra) was relied by the Bank, which judgment was noticed and this Court laid down following in paragraphs 61 and 63: ?61. The observations made by this Court in Bank of Baroda (2009 (3) SCC 217 ) 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. 63. 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.? 18. The judgment of Bank of Baroda and others vs. Ganpat Singh Deora (supra) was not departed with but distinguished on the facts. The judgment in Bank of India and another vs. K. Mohandas and others (supra) is clearly distinguishable and is not attracted.19. Dr. Singhvi has placed much reliance on the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited and another vs. Kirpal Singh, (2014) 5 SCC 189. In the above case, this Court had occasion to consider the SVRS Scheme, 2004. Under the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the eligibility of the Scheme was confined to those employees who have attained the age of 40 years and completed 10 years of qualifying service as on the date of notification. Clause 6 of Scheme, 2004 subclause 1(c) provided that pension shall be payable as per the General Insurance (Employees?) Pension Scheme, 1995. The Scheme, which was considered in the above case in Bank of Baroda(supra), is pari materia to the Scheme of the Central Bank of India, 2001. We feel ourselves bound by judgment of this Court in Bank of Baroda vs. Ganpat Singh Deora (supra), which judgment is directly on the similar Regulations and the Scheme. There being two Judge Bench judgment on the similar Regulations and Scheme, we are not inclined to accede to the request of the learned counsel for the respondent that the matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench to consider the Bank of Baroda vs. Ganpat Singh Deora and National Insurance vs. Kirpal Singh. The judgment of two Judge Bench in National Insurance vs. Kirpal Singh (supra) being on different Regulations and Scheme, we rest our judgment following two Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Bank of Baroda vs Ganpat Singh Deora (supra). 20. In view of what we have said above, we are of the view that the High Court has not correctly interpreted the Scheme and the Regulations. On the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent in the facts of the present case that this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment since the respondent is waiting for the last 18 years to receive pension, we are of the view that when the Court has to examine interpretation of a statutory Regulation, Scheme and the benefits to be extended to the employees, statutory regime in the Scheme has to be adhered to and with regard to the case of one individual, no exception can be made. We, thus, do not accept the above submission of the learned counsel for the respondent

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

Explanation:
1[ds]9. It is true that as per Clause 4 any employee who has 15 years of service or completed 40 years of age is eligible to apply for voluntary retirement under the Scheme. There is no dispute that the respondent was eligible to apply for voluntary retirement, otherbenefits under the Scheme have been extended to the respondent and only limited issue in the present appeal is entitlement of the respondent for pension. Clause 6(ii), which is relevant provision regarding entitlement of the claim provides that ?Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per Central Bank of India (Employees?) Pension Regulations, 1995……? Thus, payment of pension under the Scheme has to be as per Pension Regulations, 1995.Voluntary retirement in the case of respondent is not retirement which is covered within the definition of Clause 2(y) on strict interpretation of definition clause. Furthermore, as clear from the opening words, the said qualifying service is ?subject to the other conditions contained in Regulations?. Chapter V of the Regulations, 1995 deals with classes of pension. Different classes of pension include superannuation pension, pension on voluntary retirement, invalid pension, compassionate allowance, premature retirement pension and compulsory retirement pension. Classes of pension specifically defined in Chapter V and in a sense retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme was not contemplated when the Regulations were made in 1995. Regulation 28 was amended in the year 2002 w.e.f. 01.09.2000 whereby an employee who opts for retirement before superannuation, but after rendering service for a minimum period of 15 years was also entitled for pension. The respondent is not covered by proviso to Regulation 28. As noted above, as per Clause 6(ii) of the Scheme 2001 entitlement being on the basis of Pension Regulations, 1995, the respondent shall be entitled only for pension if he falls in any of the classes of pension in Chapter V. We may notice 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 the employees, who opted for pension but completed minimum 15 years of service and opt for voluntary retirement under this Scheme would also be eligible for pro-rata pension.The judgment of Bank of Baroda and others vs. Ganpat Singh Deora (supra) was not departed with but distinguished on the facts. The judgment in Bank of India and another vs. K. Mohandas and others (supra) is clearly distinguishable and is notScheme, which was considered in the above case in Bank of Baroda(supra), is pari materia to the Scheme of the Central Bank of India, 2001. We feel ourselves bound by judgment of this Court in Bank of Baroda vs. Ganpat Singh Deora (supra), which judgment is directly on the similar Regulations and the Scheme. There being two Judge Bench judgment on the similar Regulations and Scheme, we are not inclined to accede to the request of the learned counsel for the respondent that the matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench to consider the Bank of Baroda vs. Ganpat Singh Deora and National Insurance vs. Kirpal Singh. The judgment of two Judge Bench in National Insurance vs. Kirpal Singh (supra) being on different Regulations and Scheme, we rest our judgment following two Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Bank of Baroda vs Ganpat Singh Deora (supra). 20. In view of what we have said above, we are of the view that the High Court has not correctly interpreted the Scheme and the Regulations. On the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent in the facts of the present case that this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment since the respondent is waiting for the last 18 years to receive pension, we are of the view that when the Court has to examine interpretation of a statutory Regulation, Scheme and the benefits to be extended to the employees, statutory regime in the Scheme has to be adhered to and with regard to the case of one individual, no exception can be made. We, thus, do not accept the above submission of the learned counsel for the respondent