LexINDIAN BANK AND ANR. versus N. VENKATRAMANI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
INDIAN BANK AND ANR.
v.
·,
N. VENKATRAMANI
AUGUST 30, 2007
(S.B: SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI,JJ.)
Service Law-Jridian Bank Employee's Pension Regulation 1995-
Regulations 18 and 28-Pensionary benefits under voluntary retirement
C Scheme-Qualifying service for obtaining pension was I 5 years-Regulation
18 provided that if period of service included "broken period" of service less
than one year, but more than six months, such "broken period" to be treated
as one year-Employee had completec/ 14 years and 9 months of service at
the time of voluntary retirement-His claim for pension rejected on the
ground that he had not completed 15 years of service-High Court however
D allowed claim of employee-Interference with-Held: No case made out for
interference under Art. 136-Regulation 18 which provided for rule of
measurement of "broken period", not controlled by any of the Regulations
~~
providing for qualifying service-It does not brook any restrictive
interpretation-Provisions beneficial in nature to be construed liberally-
E Interpretation of Statutes-Liberal Construction-,-Constitution of India,
1950-Article 136.
Respondent-employee took voluntary retirement in terms of the voluntary
retirement scheme floated by Appellant-Bank. At that time, Respondent had
completed 14 years, 9 months and 17 days of service. He filed an application
F for grant of pensionary benefits under the Voluntary retirement Scheme. The
_.,.
application was rejected on the ground that Respondent had not completed 15
years of service. Respondent filed writ petition, on which High Court directed
the Appellant to grant pensionary benefits to him.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the High Court failed to
G consider that qualifying service for obtaining pension was minimum 15 years
of service and Regulation 18 of the Indian Bank Employee's Pension
Regulations, 1995 providing for measurement of"broken period" of service
did not come within the purview thereof.
Dismissing the appeal. the Court
II
570
)
;
-t
INDIAN BANK v. N. VENKATRAMANl[S.B.SINHA,J.]
571
HELD : l.1. It may be true that various provisions of the Indian Bank A
Employee's Pension Regulations, 1995 as for example Regulations 16, 17,
19, 23, etc. provided for qualifying service. Regulation 18 is not controlled by
any of the said provisions. It does not brook any restrictive interpretation. It
only provides for a rule of measurement An employee was entitled to pension
provided he has completed the specified period of service. How such a period B
of service would be computed is a matter which is governed by the statute. It
is one thing to say that a statute provides for completion of fifteen years of
minimum service, but if a provision provides for measurement of the period,
the same cannot be lost sight of Provision of the Regulations which are
beneficial in nature should be construed liberally. A person otherwise entitled
to the benefit of a beneficial provision of a statute should not ordinarily be C
deprived thereform. (Paras 13 and 14) (575-A-C; 575-GJ
1.2. In any event, it is not a case where this Court should exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. [Para 171
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bathu Prakasa Rao and Ors., (197613 SCC D
301; Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta, (20051 2 SCC 271 and ONGC Ltd v.
Sendhabhai Vastram Patel and Ors., {200516SCC454, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3989 of2007.
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 4.7.2005 of the High Court of E
Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 14744 of 2003.
Raju Ramchandran, Gaulam Awasthi and D. Mahesh Babu for the
Appellants.
S. Balakrishnan and Subramonium Prasad for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
F
2. Meaning of the term "broken period" for the purpose of grant of G
pension while implementing a voluntary retirement scheme is the question
involved herein.
3. Respondent was working with the appellant - Bank. The terms and
conditions of grant of pension to the employees of the Bank are governed
by the Indian Bank Employee's Pension Regulation 1995 (for short "the H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007) 9 S.C.R
A Regulation"); Regulation 28 whereof, as amended with effect from 8.06.2002,
B
c
' reads as under:
~
"28. Superannuation Pension
Superannuation pension shall be granted to an employee who has
retired on Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.