MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN BANK AND ANR. versus G. RAMACHANDRAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 967 · Decided: 02-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA

Judgment (excerpt)

- \, 
MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN BANK AND ANR. 
A 
V. 
G. RAMACHANDRAN AND ORS . 
• 
NOVEMBER 2, 2007 
~ 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
,. 
Service Law: 
Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995; Proviso to c 
. Regulation 17 !Indian Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 1979; 
Regulation 3 7: 
Voluntary Retirement-Leave availed by employees on loss of 
pay-Consideration for getting pensionary benefits-Held: Grant of 
,).-. 
leave governed by Service Regulations whereas grant of pension D 
I 
' 
governed by Pension Regulations-In terms of r. 21 of the Civil Services 
=i 
Pension Rules, in case leave is granted on medical ground, appointing 
authority could allow such period to be counted as qualifying service-
However, the same has no application in the instant case since for the 
purpose of construing a statute, reference to another statute not E 
permissible-Thus, High Court committed an error in relying on the 
provision under Civil Services Pension Rules-In terms of proviso to 
Regulation 17 of Pension Regulations, employees of Bank entitled to 
such benefit in the event a direction allowing the. period of leave so 
,_, 
granted to be counted as qualifying service issued by sanctioning F 
> 
authority at the end of service of the employee concerned and not at 
, 
the time when leave granted-Since no such direction issued, the 
question of granting leave by the competent authority for the purpose 
of pensionary benefits would not arise-Hence, impugned judgment 
of High Court could not be sustained and set aside-Central Civil G 
Services Pension Rules-Rule 21 . 
...., 
Respondent-employees after serving the appellant-Bank for 
more than 10 years sought for voluntary retirement from services 
967 
H 
)' 
• • 
MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN BANK v. G. 
969 
RAMA CHAND RAN [SINHA, J .] 
operate in the matter of grant of leave. It may be possible that the A 
highest authority had granted leave in favour of the respondents but 
the same would not mean that in all such events, the authority to 
grant leave in terms of Service Regulations i.e. the sanctioning 
authority under Regulation 17 would be one and the same. 
Construction of a statute should not be premised on surmises and B' 
conjectures. [Para 13] [972-F, G; 973-A] 
1.4. The question of application of mind on the part of 
sanctioning authority in.terms of proviso appended to Regulation 
17 of the Pension Regulations would arise only at the end of the 
service of the employee concerned and not at the time when the leave C 
is granted. Service Regulations and Pension Regulations, thus, 
operate in different fields. An employee of the Bank would be entitled 
to the benefit of the proviso appended to Regulation 17 of the 
Pension Regulations in the event a direction is issued by the 
sanctioning authority. If no such direction is issued, the question of D 
granting leave by the competent authority for the purpose of 
pensionary benefits wou:d not arise. Hence, the impugned judgment 
of the High Court cannot be sustained and it is set aside 
accordingly. [Paras 14 and 15] [973-A, B, C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5238-
5242 of 2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.9.2005 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. Nos. 44153, 44157, 44158, 
44178 of 2002 and 3 700 of 2003. 
F 
Raju Ramachandran, Y.K. Rao, Saket Sikri and Madhu Sikri for 
the Appellants. 
Jugal Kishore Tiwari and P. V. Y ogeswaran for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
G 
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 
13.9.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High CoUii in civil H 
970 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A writ petitions filed by the respondents herein. 
3. The short question involved in these appeals related to 
interpretation of Regulation 17 of the Indian Bank (Employees') Pension 
Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "Pension Regulations"), vis-
B a-vis Regulation 37 of the Indian Bank Officers' Service Regulations, 
1979, (hereinafter referred to as "Service Regulations"). 
4. Respondents have joined the service of the appellant-Bank on 
diverse dates. They, indisputably, have served the Bank for more than 
10 years. They opted for the Pension Regulation as and when the same 
C was framed and sought for voluntary retirement from services in 2001. 
The said offer of retirement has been accepted. 
5. The representation of the respondents th

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