ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 256 · Decided: 10-12-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
31. 
ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK RETIRED OFHCERS 
ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
,DECEMBER 10, 1991 
[A.M. AHMADI AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.] 
Reserve Bank of India Penswn Regulations 1990: Regulations 3(3) and 
C 
Reserve Bank-Introduction of Pension Scheme in substitution o/C.P.F. 
Scheme-Classificatwn of superannuated employees/or the purposes of Pen-
sion Scheme-4:Jrant of benefit of pension to employees retiring on and after 
1st January, 1986-d>enial of benefit to those retiring on or before 31st De~ 
cember, 1985 held valid . . 
D 
Difference between Liberalisation of an existing scheme and introduc-
tion of a new scheme explained-Heid in case of a new scheme the employer 
can restrict the benefit to a class of retirees. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14. 
' 
-:'>· 
. Equality-Reserve Bank-Introduction of Pension Scheme-Fixation of 
E cut-off date for the pwposes of conferring benefit of the scheme-Pension 
Scheme patterned on the Pension Scheme applicable to Ceflltal- Government 
Employees-Rationale for fvdng the cut-off date also same.}zNIF"the case of 
~~--
scheme applicable to Central Government Employees-Held fixation of cut-off 
date is not arbitrary-Regulations 3(3) and 31 of the Reserve Bank of India 
F Pension Regulations 1990 held not violative of Article 14. · 
In eXercise or the powers conferred by Section 58(2)(j) or the Reserve 
Bank oflndia Act, the Central Board of the Reserve Bank oflndia framed 
the Reserve Bar.k or India Pension Regulations, 1990. By the said Rego· 
lations a pension scheme was introduced in substitution or the existing 
G Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. Under the Regulations new en· 
trants joining on and after 1st November, 1990 automatically became 
governed by the pension scheme: for them the CPF scheme did not exist. 
The in-service employee i.e. those employees who were actually in service 
at the date of introduction or the scheme were given an option to opt out 
of the pension scheme and continue to be governed by the CPF scheme. 
H However, in respect or the superannuated employees a classification was 
256 
l 
I 
r,. 
> 
( 
. 
·. 
R.B..I~ RETIRED OFFICERS ASSR v.: U.O.I. · 
257 
made, under Regulations 3(3) and 31 or: the Regulations; between those ·A 
who retired on or before 31st December 1985 and those who retired on and 
after 1st January, 1986; to the latter the benefit of the pens.ion was 
extended by option while to the former that benefit was denied aUogether 
i.e. the Bank emplOyees who retired from servh:e .between 1st January, 
· 1986 and 1st Nov.ember, 1990 could opt for the benefit. of the pension 
scheme with effect from 1st November, 1990 provided they refunded the 
Bank's c~ntrfbution to the provident fund together With interest recei.ved . 
·thereon and t.ogether with ~urther interest calculated at· 6 per cent p~r 
annum from the date of withdrawal till t.he date of repayment wbiie the 
Bank employees who retii"ed from ·service before 1st. January 1986 \vere 
not eligible tO opt for ~he ne~ly ~ntroduced pension.scheme. 
The P~titi'one'rs, an Association o'f retired Bank employees and some 
of its members who retired from Bank's serviCe on or before 31st.Decem-
ber, 1985, filed. a writ petition' in this Court challenging the lega!ity·ofthe . 
R'egulationi; c·o'ntendfog that Regulations 3(3) and 31 were violative of 
Article 14· of the Constitution ~ecause (a) both the groups namely those 
B 
c 
who retired on or before 31st December, 1985 and those who retired D 
between· 1st Jan)lary 1986 and 31st October, 1990 belong to the· same. 
group of CPF Retirees yetthe Regulations seek to' divide them by pl~cing 
an artificial cut-off date; (b) this artificial di'vision and classification of a 
homogeneous class of retired employees is arbitrary and unreasonable 
since it is not based on any logic, but is based entirely on the whim and 
caprice of the Bank Authorities; (c) the cut-offdate fixed under the 
Regulations has no. relation to the object sought to be achieved by .the 
introduction of the pension scheme in substitution of the extant CPF 
scheme. 
On b~hatf of' the responden~ Bank ·it.w~ con!ended that :-
E 
F 
(1) Pension being a reward for past Service, revision of an existing 
benefit stands on a different footing than an altogether;new retiral benefit 
and. since the pern;ion scheme introduced by the Bank was a totally new 
scheme introduced for the first time it was open to the Bank authorities to 
dedde- the date fr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.