UNITED BANK OF INDIA versus PIJUSH KANTI NANDY AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 509 · Decided: 04-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 12 S.C.R. 509 
...... 
UNITED BANK OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
PIJUSH KANTI NANDY AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5084 of 2009) 
AUGUST 4, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.) 
·-
' .. 
--+ 
Service Law - Banking Service - Pension - Entitlement 
to - Held: Respondent not entitled to pension as he did not 
complete the requisite qualifying service - United Bank of. c 
India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 - Regns. 2(w) 
and 29(5). 
Interpretation of Statutes -
'ejusdem generis' rule -
·Discussed. 
D 
~ 
Respondent voluntarily retired from appellant-bank 
in 1989. l'ension was introduced for employees of 
appellant-bank vide the United Bank of India (Employees) 
Pension Regulations, 1995, which gave option for 
E 
pension to employees who retired from 1986 to 1993. 
Respondent filed application for exercising the option. 
The application was dismissed, purportedly since he did 
not complete 20 years of qualifying service. 
On the date of retirement, the respondent had 
F 
completed about 17 years and 10 months of actual 
service. He filed writ petition. The High Court computed 
the qualifying service of respondent by including a period 
of five years in terms of clause 5 of regulation 29 and 
' .>( 
allowed the writ petition. The High Court held that the G 
qualifying servit:e could be extended by a period of five 
years which not only took within its umbrage the service 
rendered while on duty but also service 'otherwise' 
rendered. 
509 
H 
510 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
In appeal to this Court, the question which arose for 
consideration was whether the respondent was entitled 
to the pensionary benefits having regard to the 
provisions contained in clause 5 of regulation 29 of the 
United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 
B 1995. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A beneficial legislation should not be 
extended to such an extent whereby it would take into 
c within its fold a situation which was not contemplated 
under the statute. [Para 17] [525-C-D] 
1.2. The period of service could not be computed by 
including a period of five years in terms of clause (5) of 
D Regulation 29. It is not possible to hold in absence of any 
express words that the eligibility criteria laid down in the 
Regulations for obtaining the benefit of pension i.e., the 
qualifying service should be construed in such a manner 
that a person even not in service would be deemed to be 
E in service. The definition of 'qualifying service' is 
restrictive in nature. It uses the word 'means' and not 
'includes' or 'means and includes'. Thus, the construction 
of 'qualifying service' must ordinarily be kept confined to 
the service rendered while on duty. One may be in service 
F even otherwise although not rendering any duty. Those 
exigencies of situation are covered by the other types of 
cases which would come within the purview thereof. A 
person who is not in service cannot be said to be entitled 
to the benefits thereof. The term 'otherwise' should be 
G 
read ejusdem generis. The term 'otherwise' in the context 
of the 'Regulations' should be construed so that it can 
~ ' 
become meaningful one. For the said purpose, the 
employee concerned was required to be in service. The 
statute does not raise a legal fiction. [Para 18] [525-D-H; 
526-A] 
H 
UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. PIJUSH KANTI NANDY 
511 
AND ORS. 
1.3. The principle underlying this approach to 
A 
statutory construction is that the subsequent general 
words were only intended to guard against some 
accidental omission in the objects of the kind mentioned 
earlier and were not intended to extend to objects of a 
wholly different kind. This is a presumption and operates B 
unless there is some contrary indication. But the 
preceding words or expressions of restricted meaning 
must be susceptible of the import that they represent a 
class. If no class can be found, ejusdem generis rule is 
not attracted and such broad construction as the c 
subsequent words may admit will be favoured. [Para 18] 
[526-G-H; 527-A] 
1.4. In a case of this nature, clause (5) of Regulation 
29 would be attracted only in a case where the concerned 
D 
employee has completed 20 years of qualifying service. 
Clause (5) of 29 wol'ld be applicable for the purpose of 
granting a higher monetary benefit in the matter of 
computation of pension. It does not provide for 
measurement of the period. [Para 20] [527-G-H; 528-A] 
E 
Bank of Baroda & Ors. v. Ganpat Singh Oeora

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