Case: United Bank Of India Vs. Pijush Kanti Nandy

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Respondent No.1 herein joined his services in the appellant bank as MMG Scale-II. On or about 13.2.1989, he sought voluntary retirement in terms of Regulation 19 of the Regulations. The Bank accepted his offer vide its letter dated 8.5.1989. Respondent No.1 was allowed to take voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.5.1989.4. On or about 1.11.1993, The United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1993 were introduced for employees of the appellant-Bank. Option from the employees retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.11.1993 was sought for by the appellant on or before 30.7.1994. However, the last date for receiving such option was extended till 30.9.1994 vide a circular dated 30.9.1994.On or about 1.9.2001, the respondent No.1 filed an application for exercising his option for pension. The appellant, vide its letter dated 10.10.2001 informed him that he was not entitled to give any option for the said purpose.Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said letter, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, which was marked as W.P. No.490 of 2002, praying therein for the followingA writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and each of them their men, servants, agents, and assigns to act in accordance with the law and allow Pension Benefits to the writ petitioner from the date of his retirement in terms of the United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulation 1995;b) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and especially the respondent Nos1, 2 and 3 to forthwith cancel and/or rescind the letter dated 10th October, 2001 being Annexure `P-9 hereto;(c) Writ in the nature of Prohibition directing and commanding the respondents and each of them to desist from withholding the Pension Benefits to the petitioner;(d) A writ in the nature of Certiorari directing and commanding the respondents and each of them to transmit and produce all the records relating to this case to the said Honble Court after certifying the same to that conscionable justice may be rendered;e) An order of injunction restraining the respondents and/or each of them their servants, men, agents & assigns from withholding and/or continuing to withhold the pensionary benefits of the writ petitioner;f) Rule Nisi in terms of prayersaffidavit as also a supplementary counter affidavit to the writ petition were filed by the appellant.The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by his order dated 20.3.2003. The appellant-Bank preferred an intra court appeal thereagainst which was also dismissed by the Division Bench by reason of the impugned judgment.5. The appellant is, thus, before us.The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Respondent No.1 herein joined his services in the appellant bank as MMG Scale-II. On or about 13.2.1989, he sought voluntary retirement in terms of Regulation 19 of the Regulations. The Bank accepted his offer vide its letter dated 8.5.1989. Respondent No.1 was allowed to take voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.5.1989.4. On or about 1.11.1993, The United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1993 were introduced for employees of the appellant-Bank. Option from the employees retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.11.1993 was sought for by the appellant on or before 30.7.1994. However, the last date for receiving such option was extended till 30.9.1994 vide a circular dated 30.9.1994.On or about 1.9.2001, the respondent No.1 filed an application for exercising his option for pension. The appellant, vide its letter dated 10.10.2001 informed him that he was not entitled to give any option for the said purpose.Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said letter, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, which was marked as W.P. No.490 of 2002, praying therein for the followingA writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and each of them their men, servants, agents, and assigns to act in accordance with the law and allow Pension Benefits to the writ petitioner from the date of his retirement in terms of the United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulation 1995;b) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and especially the respondent Nos1, 2 and 3 to forthwith cancel and/or rescind the letter dated 10th October, 2001 being Annexure `P-9 hereto;(c) Writ in the nature of Prohibition directing and commanding the respondents and each of them to desist from withholding the Pension Benefits to the petitioner;(d) A writ in the nature of Certiorari directing and commanding the respondents and each of them to transmit and produce all the records relating to this case to the said Honble Court after certifying the same to that conscionable justice may be rendered;e) An order of injunction restraining the respondents and/or each of them their servants, men, agents & assigns from withholding and/or continuing to withhold the pensionary benefits of the writ petitioner;f) Rule Nisi in terms of prayerst as also a supplementary counter affidavit to the writ petition were filed by the appellant.The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by his order dated 20.3.2003. The appellant-Bank preferred an intra court appeal thereagainst which was also dismissed by the Division Bench by reason of the impugned judgment.5. The appellant is, thus, before

Court's reasoning:
18. Could the period of service computed by including a period of five years as provided for in clause (5) of Regulation 29 is the question. In our opinion, it was not. Definition of `qualifying service is restrictive in nature. It uses the word `means and not `includes or `means and includes. Thus, the construction of `qualifying service must ordinarily be kept confined to the service rendered while on duty. He may be in service even otherwise although not rendering any duty. Those exigencies of situation are covered by the other types of cases which would come within the purview thereof. A person who is not in service cannot be said to be entitled to the benefit thereof. The term `otherwise should be read ejusdem generis. The term `otherwise in the context of the `Regulations should be construed so that it can become meaningful one. For the said purpose, the employee concerned was required to be in service. It is not possible to hold in absence of any express words that the eligibility criteria laid down in the Regulations for obtaining the benefit of pension, i.e., the qualifying service should be construed in such a manner that a person even not in service would be deemed to be in service. The statute does not raise a legal fiction. A strict construction of the term "qualifying service" therefor, in our opinion, would not be appropriate.In Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) & Anr. [(1989) 2 SCC 458] , the Supreme Court while discussing the definition of `manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 whether the relevant process fall within `any other process" thereby within the provision of section 2(f)(v) the Court looked at the meaning of `the expressionwhich means of the same kind or nature...signifies a principle of construction whereby words in a statute which are otherwise wide but are associated in the text with more limited words are, by implication, given a restricted operation and are limited to matters of the same class or genus as preceding them. If a list or string or family ofterms is followed by wider or residuary orwords, then the verbal context and the linguistic implications of the preceding words limit the scope of such words.Theprinciple underlying this approach to statutory construction is that the subsequent general words were only intended to guard against some accidental omission in the objects of the kind mentioned earlier and were not intended to extend to objects of a wholly different kind. This is a presumption and operates unless there is some contrary indication. But the preceding words or expressions of restricted meaning must be susceptible of the import that they represent a class. If no class can be found, ejusdem generis rule is not attracted and such broad construction as the subsequent words may admit will beof contract of service may be of different types, i.e., by punishment or by end of contract. It, however, does not take within its purview an order of suspension as the same does not bring about a cessation.We, therefore, are of the opinion that in a case of this nature, clause (5) of Regulation 29 would be attracted only in a case where the concerned employee has completed 20 years of qualifying service. Clause (5) of 29 would be applicable for the purpose of granting a higher monetary benefit in the matter of computation of pension. It does not provide for measurement of the period as was in the case of Indian Bank (supra).