CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus TARA CHAND

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 841 · Decided: 31-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
841
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
TARA CHAND
(Civil Appeal No. 5898 of 2019)
JULY 31, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Pro-rata pension – Denial of, on opting for voluntary
retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme – Writ petition – Single
Judge of High Court directed the employer-Bank to extend the benefit
of pro-rata pension in terms of the Scheme r/w. Pension Regulations
– Division Bench of High Court upheld the order of Single Judge –
Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: In view of Clause 6(ii) of Voluntary
Retirement Scheme, payment of pension under the Scheme has to be
as per Pension Regulations – As per Regulation 28 of Pension
Regulations, an employee who opted for retirement before
superannuation, would be entitled for pension, after rendering
service for a minimum period of 15 years – Therefore, the
respondent-employee, who had rendered service only for 11 years
was not entitled for pension – Central Bank of India Employees
Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001 – Clauses 4 and 6(ii) – Central
Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 – Reg.28.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 It is true that as per Clause 4 of Central Bank
of India Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001, any
employee who has 15 years of service or completed 40 years of
age is eligible to apply for voluntary retirement under the Scheme.
Clause 6(ii) of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 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.  [Para 9] [847-F-G]
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 841
841
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
1.2 Regulation 14 of Pension Regulations provides for
qualifying service for pension. Regulation 14 begins with the
words “subject to the other conditions contained in these
regulations”. Further, an employee who has rendered a minimum
of ten years of service in the Bank on the date of his retirement
or the date on which he is deemed to have retired shall qualify
for pension. Thus, this qualifying service is relevant when a person
has completed 10 years of service on the date of his retirement.
The retirement has been defined in definition Clause 2(y).
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, it is clear from
the opening words of Regulation 14 that the said qualifying service
is “subject to the other conditions contained in Regulations”.
[Paras 10, 11] [848-B-C; E-F]
1.3  Chapter V of the Pension Regulations deals with
classes of 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 per Clause 6(ii) of the
Voluntary Retirement Scheme, entitlement being on the basis of
Pension Regulations, the respondent shall be entitled only for
pension if he falls in any of the classes of pension in Chapter V.
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. [Para 11] [848-F-H]
2. The High Court has not correctly interpreted the Scheme
and the Regulations. 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
843
has to be adhered to and with regard to the case of one individual,
no exception can be made. Therefore, it cannot be said that this
Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment since the
respondent is waiting for the last 18 years to receive pension.
[Para 20] [854-D-E]
Bank of Baroda and others v. Ganpat Singh Deora,
(2009) 3 SCC 217 : [2008] 17 SCR 1151 – relied on.
Bank of India and another v. K. Mohandas and others
(200

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