M.R. PRABHAKAR AND OTHERS versus CANARA BANK AND OTHERS

Citation: [2012] 8 S.C.R. 1072 · Decided: 03-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 1072 
M.R. PRABHAKAR AND OTHERS 
v. 
CANARA BANK AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7188-7191 of 2012 etc.) 
OCTOBER 3, 2012 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
Pension - In lieu of Contributory Provident Fund -
Introduced by Banks, pursuant to Statutory Settlement, Joint 
Note andPension Regulations, 1995- Entitlement to pension 
to the employees resigning prior to the Settlement and 
Regulations - Held: Not entitled as they were not covered by 
D the Scheme of pension under the Settlement and the 
Regulations - They could not establish any pre-existing legal, 
statutory or fundamental rights to claim the benefits of the 
Regulations -
Canara Bank (Employees') Pension 
Regulations, 1995 - Regulations 22 and 29. 
E 
Indian Banks Association, representing 58 banks 
and their workmen entered into a Memorandum of 
Settlement on 29.10.1993 under Industrial Disputes Act 
read with Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. The 
Association agreed to introduce a pension Scheme in 
F banks in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF). A 
Joint Note was also made with regard to the introduction 
of pension as a second retiral benefit in lieu of CPF. 
Thereafter, the respondent-Bank made Canara Bank 
G 
H 
(Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. 
· The appellants were the officers of the respondent-
Bank who had resigned and stood relieved from their 
respective posts prior to 3.6.1993 i.e. prior to signing of 
the Statutory Settlement dated 29.10.1993, the Joint Note 
1072 
M.R. PRABHAKAR v. CANARA BANK 
1073 
dated 29.10.1993 followed by the Regulations. They filed 
A 
writ petition claiming pension in lieu of CPF. Single Judge 
of High Court allowed their claim. In writ appeal, Division 
Bench of High Court declined their claim. Hence the 
present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The appellants, when tendered their letters 
B 
of resignation, were governed by the Canara Bank 
(Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. Regulation 20(2) of 
Regulations 1979 dealt with resignation from service and c 
they tendered their resignation in the light of that 
provision. The appellants have failed to show any pre-
existing rights in their favour either in the Statutory 
Settlement/Joint Note dated 29.10.1993 or under the 
Canara Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. o 
Appellants had resigned from service prior to 1.11.1993 
and, therefore, were not covered by the statutory 
settlement, Joint Note dated 29.10.1993 and the 
Regulations 1995. They could not establish any pre-
existing legal, statutory or fundamental rights in their E 
favour to claim the benefit of Regulations 1995. [Para 20] 
[1088-B-D] 
UCO Bank and Others v. Sanwar Mal (2004) 4 SCC 412: 
2004 (2) SCR 1125- relied on. 
F 
Sheelkumar Jain v. New India Assurance Company 
Limited and Ors.(2011) 12 SCC 197: 2011 (9) SCR 574 -
distinguished. 
Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India and Ors. 
(1996) 6 SCC 459 - referred to. 
G 
2. It is not correct to say that in absence of a legal 
definition of 'voluntary retirement' or in the absence of 
legally prescribed consequences of 'resignation', it must 
be understood in the sense of voluntary relinquishment 
of service; and that there can be no distinction between 
H 
1074 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 8 S.C.R. 
A 'voluntary retirement' and 'resignation'. There is no 
ambiguity in the definition clause under Regulation 2(y) 
which has statutorily brought in the 'voluntarily 
retirement' as 'retirement'. Though the concept of 
'resignation' is well known in Service Jurisprudence, the 
B same has not been brought within the definition of 
'retirement' under Regulation 2(y). Further, the words 
'retired' and 'retirement' have some resemblance in their 
meanings, but not 'resignation'. Regulation 3(1 )(a) 
specifically used the expression 'retirement' and the 
c expression 'resignation' has not been incorporated either 
in the definition clause or in Regulation 3(1)(a). [Paras 14 
and 15] [1084-E-H; 1085-A-B] 
D 
Case Law Reference: 
(1996) s sec 459 
2004 (2) SCR 1125 
2011 (9) SCR 57 4 
Referred to 
Relied on 
Distinguished 
Para 6 
Para 15 
Para 19 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
7188-7191 of 2012. 
F 
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.11.2006 of the High 
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos. 1037, 
1934, 1941, 1969 of 2002. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos. 7185-7186, 7192-7193 and 7194-7195 of 
2012. 
G 
A.B. Dial, V.K. Rao, Raju R

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