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

2. Necessary facts for deciding this appeal are: On 26.10.1995 Central Bank of India (Employees?) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ?Regulations, 1995) came into force. The respondentTara Chand opted for the pension scheme. The respondent?s option for pension scheme was accepted by the Bank. A Scheme for voluntary retirement, namely, Central Bank of India Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001(hereinafter referred to as ?Scheme, 2001?) was framed which was made effective from 22.02.2001 to 08.03.2001. Prior to the Scheme being made effective a circular dated 31.01.2001 was issued by the Bank by which several clarifications were issued for smooth implementation of the Scheme. The respondent submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 23.02.2001. The application for voluntary retirement of respondent was accepted by the Bank by order dated 26.03.2001. By order dated 12.09.2001, the Bank refused to grant pro-rata pension to the respondent No.1, who had opted for the voluntary retirement under the Scheme, 2001. A S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4342 of 2001 was filed by the respondent praying for quashing the order dated 12.09.2001 and praying for a direction to the Bank to extend pensionary benefits to the respondent upon his retirement with effect from 01.04.2001. The learned Single Judge after considering the Regulations, 1995 and the Scheme, 2001 took the view that Clause 6(ii) of the Scheme, 2001 entitled the respondent to pension as per Pension Regulations, 1995. The writ petition was allowed and the order dated 12.06.2001 was set aside with direction to the Bank to extend benefits of pro-rata/proportionate pension to the respondent to the extent of his entitlement in terms of the Scheme, 2001 read with Regulations, 1995. The Bank aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge filed Special Appeal, which too had been dismissed by the Division Bench. The Division Bench took the view that the respondent who was above 40 years of age and had completed 11 years of service in the Bank was definitely entitled to opt for voluntary retirement and simultaneously claim pension under the Scheme. The Division Bench took the view that Clause 6(ii) of the Scheme, 2001 entitles the respondent to pension. The Division Bench placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Bank of India and another Vs. K. Mohandas and others, (2009) 5 SCC 313. Aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court, the Bank has come up in this appeal.

Reasoning:
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