BANK OF BARODA & ORS. v. GANPAT SINGH DEORA

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1151

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR, MARKANDEY KATJU

Case summary

BANK OF BARODA & ORS. v. GANPAT SINGH DEORA.pdf

Judgment text

( -1 (2008] 17 S. C. R. 1151 BANK OF BARODA & ORS. v. GANPAT SINGH DEORA (Civil Appeal No. 7417 of 2008) DECEMBER 18, 2008 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ. ] Service Law - Pension - Entitlement to - For employees opting for voluntary retirement under a scheme - Respondent bank employee - Applied for voluntary retirement under the 2001 Scheme - Application was accepted and respondent was paid all retiral benefits under the Scheme - But his request for grant ofpension in addition to other retiral benefits not acceded to by the Bank - Held: Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, after amendment made provision for situations similar to the one in the instant case - Respondent not entitled to pension as he did not complete required length of qualifying service as provided under reg. 28 - Bank of Baroda (Employees Pension) Regulations, 1995 - Regulation 28 (as amended on 2nd January, 2004) - Bank of Baroda Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme,2001.

Respondent, an employee in appellant bank, applied for voluntary retirement under the Bank of Baroda Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001 (BOBEVRS-2001 }. At the relevant time, respondent was 40 years of age and had completed only 13 years of service. His application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the Bank and he was paid all retiral benefits applicable to him under the Scheme, but his request for grant of pension in addition to the other retiral benefits was not acceded to by the Bank. The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal was whether respondent was entitled to pension. Allowing Jhe appeal, the Court HELD:1. 1. Regulation 2 of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001, of the appellant-Bank prescribes a period . of qualifying service for an employee to be eligible to . :i. apply for voluntary retirement.

On the other hand, Regulations 14 and 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, relate to the period of qualifying service for pension under 8 the said Regulations, in two different situations. While Regulation 14 provides that in order to be eligible for. pension an employee would have to render a minimum of 10 years service, Regulation 29 is applicable to the employees choosing to retire from service prematurely, and in their case the period of qualifying service would be 15 years. The facts of this case, however, do not attract the provisions of Regulation 29 since the respondent accepted the offer of voluntary retirement under the Scheme framed by the Bank and not OIJ his own volition de· hors any Scheme of Voluntary Retirement. In such a case, Regulation 14 read with Regulation 32 providing for premature retirement would not also apply to the case of the respondent. [Para 19) [1159-E-G] I 1. 2.

While Regulation 2 of the BOBEVRS-2001 speaks of eligibility for applying under the Scheme, Regulation 14 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, contemplates a situation whereunder an employee would be eligible for premature pension. The two provisions are for two different purposes and for two different situations. [Para 19) [1159-H; 1160-A] 2. Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, after amendment made provision for situations similar to the one in the instant case. In the absence of any particular provision for payment of pension to those who opted for BOBEVRS-2001 other than Regulation 11(ii) of the Scheme, one has to fall back. on the Pension Regulations, 1995, and the amended provisions of Regulation 28 which brings within the scope of. Superannuation Pension, employees who opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which will be clear from Explanatory Memorandum.

However, the period of qualifying service has been retained as 15 years for those opting for BOBEVRS-2001 and is treated differently ,, ~ from premature retirement where the minimum period of qualifying service has been fixed at 10 years in keeping with Regulation 14 of the Pension Regulations, 1995. Respondent was not eligible for pension as he had not completed the required length of qualifying service as provided under Regulation 28 of the 1995 Regulations. [Paras 19 and 20] [1160-A-E] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7417 of 2008. From the Judgment and Order dated 20. 12. 2006 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S. S. Civil Writ Petition No. 5766 of 2004 & D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 481 of 2005. Pramod B. Agarwala and Praveena Gautam for the Appellants. Aishwarya Bhati, Rekha Giri, Sweta and K. S. Bhati for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E. ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2.

The respondent herein was an employee of the Bank of Baroda, the appellant herein. On 14th December, 2000, the ' Bank introduced the 'Bank of Baroda Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2001' (hereinafter referred to as "BOBEVRS-2001 "). Under the said Scheme, along with - --and We, therefore, allow the appeal without oosts. Consequently, the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and impugned in this appeal, in D. B. Special Appeal (W) No. 481 of 2005 filed by the respondent against the dismissal of his Writ Petition CWP No. 6525 of 2005, are set aside. Similarly, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant-Bank is allowed along with this Appeal. ) ..... B. 8. 8. Appeal allowed.