Case: THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD Vs. THE REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHERS

3. The facts have been noticed by this Court from Civil Appeals @ SLP(Civil) Nos. 1940--1941 of 2020.4. The appellant in the present batch of appeals, is the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), a registered cooperative society and connected Civil Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12864 of 2020 has been preferred by the serving employees of the bank who also claim to be aggrieved by the self-same impugned judgment in the proceedings. At the same time, the respondents are the original writ petitioners who are the retired employees and the service conditions of the employees are governed by the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Land Mortgage Banks Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1978(hereinafter being referred to as the Rules 1978) and became members of the Bank Pension Scheme, which was introduced w.e.f. 1st April, 1989.5. The appellant Bank is a registered cooperative society which was earlier known as Punjab State Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. The principal object of the Bank is to provide long term loans to the farming community and to protect them from the clutches of money lenders. The main funding of the appellant Bank is by way of loans from National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development(NABARD) as per the norms laid down. The appellant Bank has two tier structure comprising of Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. at Apex level(SADB) and the Primary Agricultural Development Banks(PADB) at the grass root level. These two banks ensure timely delivery of credit to the farmers, who are its members and directly benefitted with various schemes which provide long term and short-term loans to them.6. Prior to 1989, the employees of the appellant Bank were covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952(hereinafter being referred to as the Act 1952). The scheme was being duly adhered to and necessary contributions were regularly paid by employees and the employer Bank.7. The Department of Finance, Government of Punjab, vide its letter dated 22nd September 1988, pursuant to recommendations of the Punjab Pay Commission to bring the employees serving in various Public Sector Undertakings and State aided institutions under purview of the State Pension Rules, solicited the views/comments of the concerned organisations to inter-alia communicate the additional financial burden involved in each case and whether the organisation/organisations could bear the additional liability out of their own resources. These recommendations were placed before the Administrator of the Bank who vide Resolution dated 22nd June 1989 decided to implement the recommendations of the State Government and as a consequence thereof, the pension scheme of the employees and Officers in the common cadre was introduced w.e.f. 1st April, 1989.8. Resolution No.24 passed by the Administrator of the appellant Bank dated 22nd June, 1989 is reproduced as under:-						Item No.			Agenda			Decision							1 (i)			To consider to amend Common Cadre   Rules for introducing Pension Scheme.						1 (i) Resolved that the existing Common Cadre Rule No. 15 be numbered as 15(i) and a new rule 15(ii) be incorporated as under:            			15(ii)  The Board of Directors may formulate Pension Rule with the approval of RCS Punjab.            										(ii)			To consider to introduce Pension Scheme for the employees/office rs in the Common Cadre of the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank						(ii) (a) Resolved that the Pension Scheme for the employees/officers in the Common Cadre of the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank be introduced for the adoption w.e.f. 1.4.89.            			(b) It is further resolved that the pension rules enclosed are approved. Any matter which is not specifically mentioned in these Rules shall be governed by Chapter XIII of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. II.            			(c) It is further resolved that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh be requested to exempt the bank from the payment of contributory provident fund scheme and refund the entire existing contribution with them along with family pension contribution and deposit linked insurance fund along with up to date interest on these amounts.			             						9. In furtherance thereof, the appellant Bank sent a letter dated 27th June, 1989 to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, seeking approval for introduction of the pension scheme for its employees covered under the Rules, 1978. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, by its communication dated 7th February, 1990 conveyed its approval for introduction of the pension scheme proposed by the appellant Bank to its employees covered under the Rules 1978. In pursuance thereof, the amendment was carried out in the Rules, 1978 and Rule 15(ii) was introduced authorizing the Board of Directors to formulate pension scheme with the approval of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab. For the purpose of reference, Rule 15(ii) is extracted hereunder:-Rules for introducing Pension Scheme.The Board of Directors may formulate Pension Rule with the approval of RCS Punjab.(b) It is further resolved that the pension rules enclosed are approved. Any matter which is not specifically mentioned in these Rules shall be governed by Chapter XIII of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. II.(c) It is further resolved that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh be requested to exempt the bank from the payment of contributory provident fund scheme and refund the entire existing contribution with them along with family pension contribution and deposit linked insurance fund along with up to date interest on these15 (i) PROVIDENT FUND:-The employees shall be entitled to the benefit of the General Provident Fund as provided in the employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 and scheme framed thereunder.(ii) THE PENSION SCHEME FOR THE EMPLOYEES/OFFICES IN THE COMMON CADRE RULES OF THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK W.E.F. 1.4.89.1. Short title and commencement:-(i) The rules shall be called, the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Banks Employees Pension, Family Pension and General Provident Fund Rules.(ii) These Rules shall come into force with effect from 1.4.89.(i) These rules shall apply to all the posts in the services specified in the Appendix I of the Common Cadre Rules, provided that in case of the employees appointed by transfer from Government Departments, these rules shall only apply to the extent specified in their terms and conditions of deputation agreed upon with the Government Department concerned.Provided further that nothing in these rules shall affect the application of any other law, statutory rules, bye-laws and regulations for time being in force.Provided further that an employee who joins service on or after coming into force of these rules and such existing employees, who opt for these rules, shall be covered by these rules. All category of employees shall have to exercise this option in Form-A to these rules within three months from the date of notification of these rules.(ii) The employees who do not opt for these rules shall be governed by the Employees Provident Fund Act and Rules.XXX XXX XXX XXX(o) Pay:- Pay means the pay as defined in Rule 2.44 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume--I Part--I.Note:- Unless the contrary appears from the context or subject to term pay defined in Rule 2.44 of the Punjab Civil Services, Volume--I, Part--I, does not include Special Pay.10. In furtherance thereto, the amended Rule 15(ii) came into force with effect from 1st April, 1989. In sequel to the introduction of implementation of the scheme, the contributions made by the employees and the appellant Bank were transferred to create the pension corpus fund to make it functionally viable and a trust was created by a trust deed dated 24th March, 1993 for management and effective implementation of the scheme.11. It reveals from the record that the employees of the appellant Bank who had opted for pension became members of the pension scheme and continued to derive the benefit of pension after they had opted for it till the year 2010. Later, when the appellant Bank found the scheme to be unviable on account of financial constraints, the Board of Directors of the appellant Bank in its meeting dated 29th May, 2010 in reference to Agenda No. 15 reconsidered the matter about giving pension to the bank employees and resolved as under:-1. Pension to the retired employees and those going to retire in future be communicated.2. Pension Scheme will not be applicable in case of employees employed on or after 1.1.2004.3. Pensioners be not given the benefit of commutation of pension, medical reimbursement and LTC.4. As per existing rules, the contribution equal to the 12% GPF deduction of employees to be continued by bank.5. As per letter No.CA3/64/13717 dated 29.8.2008 of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, 12% of the profits of SADB & PADBs be allocated to employees benefit fund and its 90% share be contributed to the pension fund.6. Bank to continue pension from its funds/expenses by stopping the commutation of pension, medical reimbursement and LTC facilities to its employees and retired employees, imposing 25% deduction on eligible amount of pension and after adjusting the pension amount against SADB/PADBs profits according to rules be made up on the basis of outstanding loans of SADB and PADBs.7. As and when there is improvement in financial condition of bank, the payment of full pension may be considered.12. The appellant Bank sent a letter dated 9th June, 2010 to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, seeking approval of the aforesaid Resolution. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, vide its letter dated 3rd September, 2010 issued directions to the appellant Bank to review its proposal. Pursuant thereto, the appellant Bank submitted its revised proposal to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, on 30th March, 2011 to proceed with the pension scheme in accordance with Resolution No. 15 dated 29th May, 2010. Although the proposal was turned down by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh still the Board of Directors of the appellant Bank vide its Resolution dated 17th August, 2012 decided to discontinue the pension scheme and revert to the scheme of Contributory Provident Fund with a proposal of One Time Settlement. The Board of Directors, later in exercise of its powers vested in Section 84A(2) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 with the prior approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies made amendment in Rule 15 of the Rules, 1978 by order dated 11th March, 2014. Pursuant thereto, Rule 15(ii) stood deleted. The order dated 11th March, 2014 is reproduced hereunder:-O/o Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, ChandigarhThe Managing Director,The Punjab State Cooperative Agri. Dev. Bank Ltd.,Sub:- Amendment in Clause 15 of Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Service Common Cadre Rules, 1978.Ref: Your office letter No. Admn/S07/11984 dated 27.01.2014This office has received a proposal on the subject cited above.After examining the proposal and the legal opinion sent by the Bank, in exercise of powers vested vide Section 84A(2) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act 1961, Registrar Cooperative Societies, is pleased to allow the following amendments in the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Service Common Cadre Rules 1978 as under:						Rule			Existing			Amended							15						(i) PROVIDENT FUND            			The employees shall be entitled to the benefit of the General Provident Fund as provided in the employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 and scheme framed thereunder.            						(i)   The employees shall   be entitled to the benefits of the Contributory Provident Fund as   provided in the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Act, 1952 and schemes framed thereunder.							 			(ii)   The   Pension   Scheme   for   the employees/officers in the common cadre   rules of the Punjab State Cooperative   Agricultural Development   Bank   w.e.f. 01.04.1989.			(ii) Deleted.			The employees shall be entitled to the benefit of the General Provident Fund as provided in the employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 and scheme framed thereunder.The employees shall be entitled to thebenefits of the Contributory Provident Fund asprovided in the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Act, 1952 and schemes framed thereunder.Pension Scheme for the employees/officers in therules of the Punjab State Cooperativew.e.f. 01.04.1989.13. It reveals from the record that since the appellant Bank much before the amendment had stopped making payments of pension in terms of Rule 15(ii) of the Rules 1978, the employees approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing writ petitions and various interim orders were passed from time to time and even at one stage, it was decided to introduce a proposal of one time settlement which was furnished by the appellant Bank on 16th October, 2012 in the pending proceedings before the High Court and, as informed, few of the employees have settled their claims under the One Time Settlement but it will be appropriate to notice at this stage that while the proceedings were pending before the Division Bench of the High Court, by Order dated 24th January 2014, it was made clear that one time settlement which has been implemented after seeking approval of the competent authority shall be without prejudice to the legal rights of the applicant/respondent employees. The Order dated 24th January, 2014 is reproduced hereunder:-Allowed as prayed for.Document Annexure A1 is taken on record subject to such exceptions.CM stands disposed of.CM-71-LPA-2014 in LPA-2001-2013Notice to the non--applicant/appellants. Ms. Jaishree Thakur, Advocate accepts notice.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that since One Time Settlement scheme has already been implemented after seeking approval of the competent authority, this application is disposed of with a clarification that the implementation of the said scheme shall be without prejudice to the legal rights of the applicant/respondents.14. This fact can be further noticed that the learned Single Judge of the High Court decided the writ petitions by a Judgment dated 31st August 2013 and Rule 15(ii) was deleted by the appellant Bank by Order dated 11th March, 2014 while the proceedings were pending in LPA before the High Court.15. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the employees of the appellant Bank, having served the Bank were covered under the scheme which was applicable at the given time under the Act 1952 (prior to 1989). It is the appellant Bank which accepted the recommendations of the State Government and solicited options from the employees as to whether they wanted to opt for a pension scheme which became applicable after the amendment was made under the Rules 1978 and after a conscious decision, Rule 15(ii) was introduced, it could not be justified to circumvent the impact of the amended rule and thus create a situation which would have the effect of defeating the rights which are conferred upon the employees to seek pension under the rules which became applicable with effect from 1st April, 1989 and finally held that the employees are entitled to regular pension including revised rates of dearness allowance, to all the employees who became member of the pension scheme under the Rules 1978.16. When the matter travelled to the Division Bench of the High Court, by that time, the amendment was made by an Order dated 11th March, 2014 and Rule 15(ii) was deleted. The Division Bench, after taking note of the submissions made by the parties observed that the decision to frame the pension scheme was a conscious decision of the appellant Bank taken in its own wisdom and corresponding rules were introduced and made applicable from 1st April, 1989 and Rule 15(ii) was deleted on 11th March, 2014. In the interregnum, the employees became members of the pension scheme and were paid their regular pension for sufficient time which cannot be defeated and taken away retrospectively detrimental to their interest. The amendment which has taken away the vested and accrued right of the employees to get pension and that too with retrospective effect would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and disposed of the LPA with a declaration that amendment dated 11th March, 2014 under Rules 1978 shall apply prospectively.17. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 29th July, 2019 became subject matter of challenge at the instance of the appellant Bank and by the serving employees who have claimed that their right to get pension may be affected in futuro, and have approached this Court ventilating their grievances in the instant proceedings.18. It may be relevant to note that before the High Court, at different stages, different counter affidavits were filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner(RPFC) with reference to the grant of exemption after the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 became the part of the Act 1952.19. It has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the RPFC under the Act 1952 that earlier it was erroneously mentioned granted exemption from pension scheme, but that was a factually incorrect statement recorded and the RPFC has made an unconditional apology for making such a statement of fact. It is the admitted case of RPFC that neither any application was filed by the appellant Bank seeking exemption from the employees pension scheme nor it was granted or refused.

Reasoning:
39. The facts are not in dispute that the respondents are the retired employees and members of the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited, Chandigarh and they were earlier the members of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme under the Act 1952. The scheme was being duly adhered to and necessary contributions were made over by the employees and employer Bank. Later on, with the recommendation of the Punjab Pay Commission, regarding introducing the pension scheme, the Administrator of the appellant Bank vide its Resolution dated 22nd June, 1989 decided to implement the recommendations of the State Government and as a consequence thereof, the pension scheme for the employees and Officers in the Rules 1978 was introduced with effect from 1st April 1989.41. Indisputedly, all the respondent employees were given the option to become member of the pension scheme on being retired from service and they continued to derive the benefit of pension after they had opted continuously until the year 2010 and only thereafter, the litigation started when the appellant Bank stopped making payment of pension in terms of the Bank pension scheme. Although the Bank pension scheme will not apply in cases to employees employed on or after 1st January 2004. Later on, the Bank took a decision by deleting Rule 15(ii) of pension scheme by an amendment dated 11th March, 2014 and that became the cause of grievance of the employees in questioning the action of the Bank by approaching the Courts for ventilating their grievance.43. The concept of vested/accrued right in the service jurisprudence and particularly in respect of pension has been examined by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Chairman, Railway Board and Others(supra) as follows:-11. On the basis of the said decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal, other Benches of the Tribunal at Bangalore, Hyderabad, Allahabad, Jabalpur, Jaipur, Madras and Ernakulam have passed orders giving relief on the same grounds. These appeals and special leave petitions have been filed against the decision of the Full Bench and those other Benches of the Tribunal. Some of these matters were placed before a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court on 28-3-1995 on which date the following order was passed:Two questions arise in the present case, viz., (i) what is the concept of vested or accrued rights so far as the government servant is concerned, and (ii) whether vested or accrued rights can be taken away with retrospective effect by rules made under the proviso to Article 309 or by an Act made under that article, and which of them and to what extent.We find that the Constitution Bench decisions in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India (1968) 1 SCR 185 ; B.S. Vadera v. Union of India (1968) 3 SCR 575   and State of Gujarat v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni (1983) 2 SCC 33  have been sought to be explained by two three-Judge Bench decisions in K.C. Arora v. State of Haryana (1984) 3 SCC 281  and K. Nagaraj v. State of A.P. (1985) 1 SCC 523  in addition to the two-Judge Bench decisions in P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P. (1987) 3 SCC 622  and K. Narayanan v. State of Karnataka 1994 Supp (1) SCC 44. Prima facie, these explanations go counter to the ratio of the said Constitution Bench decisions. It is not possible for us sitting as a three-Judge Bench to resolve the said conflict. It has, therefore, become necessary to refer the matter to a larger Bench. We accordingly refer these appeals to a Bench of five learned Judges.44. This Court, after taking note of the earlier view on the subject further held in Chairman, Railway Board and Others(supra)as under:-20. It can, therefore, be said that a rule which operates in futuro so as to govern future rights of those already in service cannot be assailed on the ground of retroactivity as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but a rule which seeks to reverse from an anterior date a benefit which has been granted or availed of, e.g., promotion or pay scale, can be assailed as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to the extent it operates retrospectively.24. In many of these decisions the expressions vested rights or accrued rights have been used while striking down the impugned provisions which had been given retrospective operation so as to have an adverse effect in the matter of promotion, seniority, substantive appointment, etc., of the employees. The said expressions have been used in the context of a right flowing under the relevant rule which was sought to be altered with effect from an anterior date and thereby taking away the benefits available under the rule in force at that time. It has been held that such an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. We are unable to hold that these decisions are not in consonance with the decisions in Roshan Lal Tandon (1968) 1 SCR 185 , B.S. Vedera (1968) 3 SCR 575   and Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni (1983) 2 SCC 33 .25. In these cases we are concerned with the pension payable to the employees after their retirement. The respondents were no longer in service on the date of issuance of the impugned notifications. The amendments in the rules are not restricted in their application in futuro. The amendments apply to employees who had already retired and were no longer in service on the date the impugned notifications were issued.33. Apart from being violative of the rights then available under Articles 31(1) and 19(1)(f), the impugned amendments, insofar as they have been given retrospective operation, are also violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on the ground that they are unreasonable and arbitrary since the said amendments in Rule 2544 have the effect of reducing the amount of pension that had become payable to employees who had already retired from service on the date of issuance of the impugned notifications, as per the provisions contained in Rule 2544 that were in force at the time of their retirement.46. Later, in Bank of Baroda and Another(supra), the question arose with respect to the employees who retired or died while in service on or after 1st April 1998 and before 31st October, 2002 to whom benefits were vested and accrued could be deprived of their retiral benefits. In this context, while taking note of the view relying on the Constitution bench Judgment in Chairman, Railway Board and Others(supra), this Court observed as under:-29. Thus, in our opinion, the Regulations which were in force till 2003, would apply with full force and as a matter of fact, the amendments made in it by addition of Explanation (c) in Regulation 2(s) did not have the effect of amending the Regulations relating to pension, as contained in Regulation 38 read with Regulations 2(d) and 35 of the Regulations of 1995. Even otherwise, if it had the effect of amending the pay and perks average emoluments, as specified in Regulation 2(d), it could not have operated retrospectively and taken away accrued rights. Otherwise also, it would have been arbitrary exercise of power. Besides, there was no binding statutory force of the so called Joint Note of the Officers Association, as admittedly, to Officers Association even the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act were not applicable and joint note had no statutory support, and it was not open to forgo the benefits available under the Regulations to those officers who have retired from 1.4.1998 till December 1999 and thereafter, and to deprive them of the benefits of the Regulations. Thus, by the Joint Note that has been relied upon, no estoppel said to have been created. There is no estoppel as against the enforcement of statutory provisions. The Joint Note had no force of law and could not have been against the spirit of the statutory Regulations and the basic service conditions, as envisaged under the Regulations framed under the Act of 1970. They could not have been tinkered with in an arbitrary manner, as has been laid down by this Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited & Anr. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr., (1986) 3 SCC 156  & Delhi Transport Corporation vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, (1991) Supp.1 SCC 600 .47. The exposition of the legal principles culled out is that an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away the benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule indeed would divest the employee from his vested or accrued rights and that being so, it would be held to be violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.48. In the instant case, the Bank pension scheme was introduced from 1st April 1989 and options were called from the employees and those who had given their option became member of the pension scheme and accordingly pension was continuously paid to them without fail and only in the year 2010, when the Bank failed in discharging its obligations, respondent employees approached the High Court by filing the writ petitions. The Bank later on withdrawn the scheme of pension by deleting clause 15(ii) by an amendment dated 11th March, 2014 which was introduced with effect from 1st April, 1989 and the employees who availed the benefit of pension under the scheme, indeed their rights stood vested and accrued to them and any amendment to the contrary, which has been made with retrospective operation to take away the right accrued to the retired employee under the existing rule certainly is not only violative of Article 14 but also of Article 21 of the Constitution.51. The judgment on which learned counsel for the appellant Bank has placed reliance in the case of Marathwada Gramin Bank Karamchari Sanghatana and Another(supra), the issue under consideration was with respect to provident fund. The Marathawada Gramin Bank had floated a provident fund scheme built on better rates of contributions than the rates mandated under the employees provident fund scheme. Hence, the better scheme of provident fund was statutorily recognized by grant of exemption under Section 17(1). Later, Marathawada Gramin Bank discontinued its provident fund scheme for financial unviability, and reverted to rates mandated under paragraph 26 of the EPFS. The Bank later declined to exercise its voluntary contribution under Para 26 of the scheme after the exemption was declined and that came to be upheld by this Court which may not be of any assistance to learned counsel for the appellant in the instant case.52. So far as the judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others(supra) is concerned, it was a case where apart from the scheme under the provisions of Act 1952, the State of Himachal Pradesh framed another scheme for the Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees Pension(Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme, 1999. It was made operational with effect from 1st April 1999 but before the rights to the employees could be vested/accrued, it was repealed on 2nd December, 2004. The question arose whether such contingent right vested with the employee on their having once opted under 1999 scheme was at all be binding or irrevocable despite being repealed by a later notification dated 2nd December, 2004. In that context, this Court observed that it was not the case of the right which accrued to the employee and in that context, the repealing notification was upheld by this Court.53. In State of Rajasthan(supra), it was a case where the University which was an autonomous body created under the provisions of the Act by its Resolution introduced the pension scheme, without taking recourse of the fact that the Resolution of the Board of the Management of the University can be enforced only with prior approval from the Chancellor, i.e., the Governor of the State in terms of Section 39 of the Act and it was never approved by the Chancellor, in absence whereof, such resolution of the Board of Management was unauthorized and was not open to be implemented. In the given circumstances, this Court was of the view that in absence of the mandate of Section 39 being complied with, the Board of Management of the University was not justified in introducing the scheme of pension.54. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant about the financial distress of the appellant Bank to justify the impugned amendment to say that it may not be possible to continue the grant of pension any more is concerned, suffice to say, that the rule making authority was presumed to know repercussions of the particular piece of subordinate legislation and once the Bank took a conscious decision after taking permission from the Government of Punjab and Registrar, Co-operative, introduced the pension scheme with effect from 1st April 1989, it can be presumed that the competent authority was aware of the resources from where the funds are to be created for making payments to its retirees and merely because at a later point of time, it was unable to hold financial resources at its command to its retirees, would not be justified to withdraw the scheme retrospectively detrimental to the interests of the employees who not only became member of the scheme but received their pension regularly at least upto the year 2010 until the dispute arose between the parties and entered into litigation.55. In our view, non--availability of financial resources would not be a defence available to the appellant Bank in taking away the vested rights accrued to the employees that too when it is for their socio-economic security. It is an assurance that in their old age, their periodical payment towards pension shall remain assured. The pension which is being paid to them is not a bounty and it is for the appellant to divert the resources from where the funds can be made available to fulfil the rights of the employees in protecting the vested rights accrued in their favour.56. So far as the submission made by the serving employees is concerned, they have no locus to question. At the same time, their apprehension as being projected to this Court is completely misplaced for the reason that employer/employees contribution is being provided under the employees pension scheme(EPS) of the Act 1952 which is made applicable to the serving employees and they are entitled to get pension in terms of the provisions of the Act 1952. So far as their complaint regarding payment of contribution is concerned, it is in no manner going to be adjusted for payment of pension to retirees/respondents, who are entitled to get their pension in terms of the pension scheme of which they are members and it is for the appellant Bank to reserve the resources and make payment to the retired employees seeking pension to the scheme in vogue when they became members and took benefits pursuant thereto.