LexTHE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA versus M.T. MANI AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1128 : 2025 INSC 769 The Reserve Bank of India v. M.T. Mani and Another (Civil Appeal No. 13962 of 2024) 23 May 2025 [Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration RBI issued Administration Circular No.1 on 14.09.2020 opening a last option for the serving and retiring employees to switch over to pension scheme from CPF scheme. Whether the fixing of the cut off date i.e. 01.07.2020 for grant of pensionary benefits and that too prospectively is in consonance with law or is discriminatory and arbitrary. Headnotes† Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – RBI Pension Regulations, 1990 – Contributory Provident Fund – After introduction of Pension Regulations, 1990, RBI gave option to the serving and retiring employees to switch over to pension scheme from CPF scheme in the year 1990, 1992, 1995 and 2000 – Respondent No.1 joined service of the RBI on 14.09.1981 and became a member of the CPF Scheme in operation then for the staff – He got the aforesaid four options in his tenure, however, he chose not to join the Pension Scheme rather continued with the CPF – Respondent retired on 30.11.2014 – After the Government of India rejected the proposal of RBI for another option for CPF optees to switch to the Pension Scheme, respondent no.1 filed writ petition – During the pendency of writ petition, RBI issued Administration Circular No.1 on 14.09.2020 opening a last option for the serving and retiring employees – Thereafter, respondent opted for for the Pension Scheme and in the pending writ petition moved for an amendment to challenge the denial of entitlement to the grant of arrears of pension from the date of retirement – Amendment was allowed – The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge of High Court, holding therein that the respondent had well-informed details * Author [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1129 The Reserve Bank of India v. M.T. Mani and Another regarding the non-grant of arrears of pension and eligibility for pension from a particular date i.e. 01.07.2020 – Aggrieved, respondent filed writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court and same was allowed – Correctness: Held: Each administrative circular was independent in itself where the competent authority had taken a well-informed, considered, and gauged decision with regard to the applicability, liability and financial implications, apart from the other aspects – Each time, as is apparent, different aspects were taken note of – In some cases, it was provided for retrospective effect, while in others it was restricted to employees up to a particular date, and yet another only to those employees who were in service while on yet another occasion to both ex-employees and in-service employees – What is apparent, therefore, is that on each occasion, there was a specific time frame fixed for giving an option, and the benefit was similarly limiting it to the beneficiaries – The financial burden and the liability are prominent aspects taken into consideration by the Government while granting its no objection to the proposed Scheme – In the instant case, the retrospective financial burden would have resulted in an unjustified liability of over 900 crores for the RBI, which would have led to a financially unsustainable scenario – It is settled that individual hardships cannot justify altering a rule of general application and underscored that the determination of cut-off dates is a matter of policymaking – This function squarely lies within the domain of the rule-making authority, not the judiciary, as courts cannot assume the role of framing or modifying policy decisions in the guise of judicial review – Therefore, it cannot be said that the cut off date, as fixed for grant of pension while refusing its retrospectivity, thereof would be arbitrary or illegal or discriminatory in nature – The Respondent, therefore, cannot be permitted to choose a particular aspect of the Scheme that makes it unworkable, and that too for his own financial benefit – Approbation and reprobation would not be permissible in such schemes – Respondent having once opted for the Scheme cannot be permitted to not accept a part thereof while intending to take the benefit of the Scheme as a whole – Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court is hereby set aside and the Judgment of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition preferred by the respondent is restored. [Par
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.