UNION BANK OF INDIA versus VENKATESH GOPAL MAHISHI AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 878 · Decided: 12-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
UNION BANK OF INDIA 
v. 
VENKATESH GO PAL MAHI SHI AND ANR. 
JANUARY 12, 2007 
[G.P. MATHURAND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Union Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995-
Regulation 29-Award staff-Retired voluntarily on medical grounds 
seeking compassionate appointment to his dependent-Appointment to 
dependent given-Thereafter pension scheme framed by Bank-The retired 
employee sought pension thereunder-Rejection challenged-Courts below 
granted pension-On appeal, held: The retiree being award staff and 
having been retired under different scheme cannot be considered having 
voluntarily retired-Hence not entitled to pension under the Scheme-
Service Law-Pension. 
Respondent No. 1 an employee of the appellant-Bank, sought retirement 
on medical grounds with request to give employment to his dependent on 
compassionate ground. His application was dealt with and considered under 
non-statutory scheme namely 'Appointment of Dependents of Employees 
Retiring Voluntarily on Medical Grounds'. He was retired w.e.f. 1.11.1993. 
E 
His dependant was also given employment. 
F 
Appellant-Bank framed Union Bank of India (Employees') Pension 
Regulations 1995, whereunder pension option was made available to the 
employees of the appellant. Bank called for option to be exercised by the 
employees who had retired between 1.1.1986 and 31.10.1993. Respondent 
No. 1 submitted an application for pension under the Regulations, but his 
claim was rejected by the Competent Authority on the ground that he was 
not eligible as he was an award staff and was retired under different 
scheme. Indian Bank's association also advised the Bank that the concept 
of voluntary retirement for the purpose of receiving pension on voluntary 
G 
retirement under Regulation 29 was not available to the award staff. 
Respondent filed Writ Petition seeking grant of pension and the same was 
allowed by Division Bench of High Court Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD: Respondent No.1, having retired as award staff, is not entitled 
878 
r 
1 
UNION BANK OF INDIA v. VENKATESH GOPAL MAHISHI [PANTA, J.] 879 
to the grant of pension under the Pension Regulations 1995. The respondent 
A 
No.1 has not denied his status as an award staff when he sought retirement 
on medical grounds. Thus, respondent No.1 cannot take the benefit of the 
letter received by him from the Chief Manager of the appellant-bank, 
treating him as voluntarily retired from the service of the bank w.e.f. 
01.11.1993 under the Pension Regulations as nomenclature of the words 
'voluntarily retired' used in the said letter will not change the status of the 
respondent No.I from award staff to any other category of the employee of 
.the appellant-bank. Thus, Regulation 29, upon which reliance is placed by 
respondent No.I, is not attracted in his case and his claim for pension is 
not covered thereunder. [Paras 28 and 24) (887-E, 886-F-G) 
Madhav K. Kirtikar v. Bank of India, 1997 (2) Born. C.R. 524, 
distinguished. 
Bank of India v. lndu Rajagopalan and Ors., 200 I (9) SCC 318, 
referred to. 
CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5503 of2003. 
From the final Judgment/Order dated 2.4.2002 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 567/2002. 
Raju Ramachandran, O.P. Gaggar, for the Appellant. 
Nitin S. Tambwekar, B.S. Sai and K. Rajeev, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,J.: 
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 
02.04.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ 
Petition No.567 of2002 whereby and whereunder Venkatesh Gopal Mahishi 
has been held entitled for pension under the Union Bank oflndia (Employees') 
Pension Regulations, 1995. 
2. The facts, in brief, are that V enkatesh Gopal Mahishi, respondent 
No. l herein, joined the services of the Union Bank of India (hereinafter 
referred to as 'the appellant-bank') as a Peon on 02.05. 1960. On 19.02.1991, 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
the respondent No. I had submitted an application to the authority seeking 
H 
880 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
retirement on medical grounds with further request to give employment to 
his dependent son on compassionate ground. The request of the respondent 
No. I was accepted by the appellant-bank and he was retired as Daftary from 
the service w.e.f. 0 l. I l .1993 and later on his son has been given employment. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
3. The appell

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