LexUNITED BANK OF INDIA (NOW PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK) versus SWAPAN KUMAR MULLICK & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1642 : 2025 INSC 881 United Bank of India (Now Punjab National Bank) v. Swapan Kumar Mullick & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9679 of 2025) 22 July 2025 [Dipankar Datta* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose to determine whether an employee resigning from service citing mental depression, after having served his employer much in excess of the period stipulated to qualify for being entitled to pension, forfeits his right to opt for pension in terms of a specific provision in the Pension Regulations for all times to come, or, in view of pension being a social welfare measure for employees in the winter years of their life, adopting a beneficial approach is permissible. Headnotes† Service Law – United Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1955 – Regn 22 – Resignation of an employee, who is not a pension optee – Benefit of pension on basis of the circular – Entitlement – Resignation tendered by the respondent no.1-employee citing mental depression, after 36 years of service – Bank accepted the same and the employee relieved from service – Few years later, based on bipartite settlement, Bank issued a Circular extending ‘another option for pension’ for the employees who had not opted for the pension scheme under the 1955 Regn – On basis thereof, the employee claimed pension, however, the Bank returned the application stating that employees who had left the service by opting for voluntary retirement/compulsory retirement/ resignation not eligible to opt for pension – Single Judge held that the employee was entitled to opt for pension – Division Bench set aside the order and issued certain directions to the Bank, directing the Board of Directors of the Bank to consider amending Regn 22 – Correctness: * Author [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1643 United Bank of India (Now Punjab National Bank) v. Swapan Kumar Mullick & Ors. Held: Employee must be held to have resigned from service and not retired voluntarily so as to enable him secure the benefit of a further opportunity to opt for pension in terms of the circular – Employee while in service had the opportunity to opt for pension in terms of the 1995 Regulations, however, he opted for provident fund – Having served the Bank for over 35 years and in service for more than a decade after introduction of the 1995 Regulations, he is presumed to have been aware of the same together with the consequences of tendering resignation instead of seeking voluntary retirement – Presumption can also be legitimately drawn that respondent no.1 was satisfied with whatever he received on account of provident fund dues while demitting office – Respondent no.1 was suffering from mental depression but that did not prevent him from being coherent while writing the resignation letter – Not the case of employee that he signed without being aware of its contents – Terms of the bipartite settlement are binding on all the employees of the public sector banks, which were parties thereto, and such terms cannot be read in a manner to extend its coverage dehors the statutory regulations – Reg 22 not found to be so manifestly arbitrary, so as to call for interference – Reg 22 could have been held to violate Art.14, if employee, upon resigning from service, were denied dues on account of provident fund – Since by 2006, when he resigned, respondent no.1 had not shown any inclination to opt for pension instead of provident fund, Reg 22 did not affect him at all – To have an entitlement to pension, futuristically speaking, employee was required to adhere to the 1995 Regulations, which he did not – Although the Division Bench required the Board of Directors of the Bank to ‘consider’ an amendment to Regn 22, in the light of stipulation of a timeline and the other directions for determining whether resignation tendered by respondent no.1 could be treated as voluntary retirement and to process his claim for pension upon such determination, user of the word ‘consider’ is really a mandate on the Bank to amend Regn 22, which could not have been issued – Division Bench overstepped its bounds by directing the Board of Directors to consider amending Regn 22 even when the vires of such a regulation was not under challenge – Order passed by the Division Bench upheld and the directions to ‘consider’ an amendment to Regn 22 set aside – In exercise of power u/Art.142, some relief extended to the employee to assist him survive in the winter
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.