Holding

The respondent is not eligible for pension because he did not satisfy the 15‑year qualifying service requirement prescribed by the amended Regulation 28 of the 1995 Pension Regulations.

Summary

Ganpat Singh Deora, a Bank of Baroda employee aged 40 with 13 years of service, opted for voluntary retirement under the Bank's 2001 Voluntary Retirement Scheme (BOBEVRS‑2001). While he received the scheme’s retiral benefits, his claim for a pension under the Bank of Baroda Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 was denied. The Industrial Tribunal and the Rajasthan High Court had awarded him pension, but the bank appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court examined the interplay of Regulation 2 of the VRS, Regulations 14, 28 and 29 of the 1995 Pension Regulations, and the amendment to Regulation 28 made in 2004, which stipulates a 15‑year qualifying service for pension eligibility of VRS retirees. Since Deora had not completed the required 15 years, the Court held he was not entitled to pension. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the High Court’s order granting pension was set aside.

Issues considered

Whether an employee who opts for voluntary retirement under the Bank of Baroda Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001 is entitled to a superannuation pension under the Bank of Baroda Employees Pension Regulations, 1995.
Interpretation of Regulation 14, Regulation 28 (as amended) and Regulation 29 of the 1995 Pension Regulations in relation to voluntary retirement under a scheme.
Whether the amendment to Regulation 28, effective from 1 September 2000, applies to the respondent’s case.

Legislation cited

Bank of Baroda (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995s. Regulation 14, s. Regulation 2, s. Regulation 28, s. Regulation 29, s. Regulation 32
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Subjects

service lawpension entitlementvoluntary retirement schemequalifying service periodBank of BarodaRegulation 28 amendmentsuperannuation pension

Judgment

(

-1 (2008] 17 S.C.R. 1151

BANK OF BARODA & ORS. A
v.
GANPAT SINGH DEORA
(Civil Appeal No. 7417 of 2008)

DECEMBER 18, 2008
B
[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 c
2001 Scheme - Application was accepted and respondent
was paid all retiral benefits under the Scheme - But his
request for grant of pension 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 D
- 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. E
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 F
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.
G
The question which arose for consideration in the
present appeal was whether respondent was entitled to
pension.
Allowing Jhe appeal, the Court
1151 H
1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A 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,
c 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
D 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
E
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
F 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
G 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
H
BANK OF BARODA & ORS. v. GANPAT SINGH DEORA 1153

Explanatory Memorandum. However, the period of A
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. B
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.
c
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.
D
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.
AL TAMAS 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 F
"BOBEVRS-2001 "). Under the said Scheme, along with
-<\ terminal benefits pension in terms .of the Bank of Baroda
(Employees Pension) Regulations, 1995, (hereinafter referred
to as "the Pension Regulations, 1995") was to be provided to
employees who opted for the VRS Scheme. The said Scheme
G
provided that in order to be eligible to opt for the Scheme all
permanent employees of the Bank working in India or India-
based Officers working abroad, who as on 31.3.2001 would
\ have completed/would be completing minimum 15 years of
service OR who would have completed/would be completing
40 years of age would be eligible to apply for voluntary H
1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
~

A retirement under the BOBEVRS-2001.
3 ..Claiming t2.. ~.~. eligible under the Scheme, having
completed 40 years of age, the respondent applied for voluntary ~
'
retirement under the said Scheme. At the relevant point of time
the respondent had completed only 13 years of service in the
B appellant Bank. However, the respondent's 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 th~ Bank. After retiring from
service on the acceptance of his application for voluntary
c retirement, the respondent filed an application before the
Central Labour Commissioner, Ajmer, on 24.10.2001 claiming
pension with.effect from 1.4.2001. The appellant Bank opposed
the claim of pension contending that in terms of Regulations
14, 28 and 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, the respondent
D was not entitled to pension. As the reconciliation process failed,
the dispute as to whether the refusal of the Bank to provide
pensionary benefits to the respondent after voluntary retirement,
was legal and justified, was referred to the Industrial Disputes
.;
Tribunal, Jodhpur.
E 4. On 21.10.2003 when the matter was fixed before the
Tribunal, the Bank went unrepresented and subsequently the
Tribunal by its Award dated 23.10.2003 allowed the
respondent's claim and directed the appellant to pay the
respondent pension according to the Pension Regulations, ·
1995, with effect from 1.4.2001.
F
5. It appears that before the Tribunal passed its award on
·23rd October, 2003, t~e Government of India made certain ,.
amendments to Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulations,
1995, which were adopted by the Board of Directors of the
appellant-Bank in its meeting held on 17th March, 2003. The
G said amended Regulation was published in the Gazette of India
on 2nd January, 2004 and provides as follows:-
"28. Superannuation Pension. Superannuation Pension
shall be granted to an employee who has retired on his J
attaining the age of Superannuation specified in the
H Service Regulations or settlements. Provided that, with
BANK OF BARODA & ORS. v. GANPAT SINGH DEORA 1155
[ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

effect from 1st day of September, 2000 Pension shall also A,
be granted to an employee who opts to retire before
attaining the age of Superannuation, but after rendering
• J
service for a minimum period of 15 years in terms of any
scheme that may be framed for such purpose by the Board
with the approval of the Government." B.
Regulation 28 as it stood prior to the aforesaid amendment is
as follows:-
"28. Superannuation Pension - Superannuation Pension
shall be granted to an employee who has retired on his
attaining the age of Superannuation specified in the c
Service Regulations or settlements."
6. Aggrieved by the Award of the Tribunal, the appellant-
Bank filed a Writ Petition before the High Court on 24th
January, 2004, and the same was registered as S.B.C.W.
No.5766 of 2004. The respondent-employee also filed a Writ
Petition before the High Court in 2005 for implementation of D.
the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and the same was
registered as C.W.P. No.6525 of 2005. The Writ Petition filed
by the respondent was dismissed by the learned Single Judge
of the High Court on 7th November, 2005, on the ground that
the Industrial Disputes Act is a Code by itself and contains E
provisions for enforcement of the Award and the respondent-
employee was, therefore, required to pursue his remedy
accordingly. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single
Judge, the respondent-workman filed Special Appeal, being
No. 481 of 2005. The Division Bench of the High Court took
up both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition filed by the
F
~
appellant-Bank for hearing and by a common judgment dated
20th December, 2006, dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellant-Bank and allowed the Writ Appeal filed by the
respondent-workman and directed release of pensionary
benefits to the respondent within a period of two months along G
with interest @8% on arrears of pensionary benefits from the
date of making of the Award. The said decision of the Division
Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur is the subject
matter of challenge in the present appeal.
7. Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala, learned counsel appearing for H
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A the appellant-Bank, submitted that under Regulation 29 of the
BOBEVRS-2001, which provides for pension on voluntary
retirement, the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for ~ ·~
availing of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Under the said
Regulation only an employee who had completed 20 years of
service on or after the first day of November, 1993, or by giving
B
notice of not less than three months in writing to the Appointing
Authority, could retire from service. Mr. Agarwala, however, also
pointed out that by the amendment of Regulation 28 referred
to hereinabove, the position was altered and it was provided
that with effect from 1st September, 2000, pension would also
c be granted to an employee who opted fo retire before attaining
the age of superannuation, but after rendering service for a
minimum period of 15 years in terms of any scheme that may
.,.
be framed for such purpose by the Board with the approval of
the Government. In other words, once the Voluntary Retirement
D
Scheme was introduced, an employee having rendered service
for a minimum period of 15 years would also be entitled to apply
.....
for Superannuation pension.
8. However, Mr. Agarwala submitted that there was no
I
dispute with regard to the fact that-on 31st March, 2001, which
was indicated as the cut-off date in the Voluntary Retirement
E
Scheme of the Bank, the respondent had completed about 13
years and 3 months of service. Mr. Agarwala submitted that
while applying for voluntary retirement, the respondent also "ii
claimed the benefit of the Pension Regulations, 1995,
paragraph 14 whereof deals with qualifying service for
F receiving pension. Paragraph 14 provides that subject to the
other conditions contained in the Regulations an employee who
had rendered minimum of 10 years of service in the Bank on , .,,
the date of his retirement or the date on which he is deemed
to have retired, would qualify for pension. Mr. Agarwala
submitted that apart from Regulation 14 which deals with
G
qualifying service for pension simplicitor, Paragraph 29 is a
specific provision providing for pension on voluntary retirement,
which was applicable to the case of the respondent. Mr. /

Agarwala submitted that Regulation 29, as mentioned
hereinabove, after amendment of Regulation 28, empowers an
H I
'
BANK OF BARODA & ORS. v. GANPAT SINGH DEORA 1157
[AlTAMAS KABIR, J.]

employee, who had completed 15 years of qualifying service, A
to retire from service by giving notice of not less than 3 months
,:, in writing to the Appointing Authority. Mr. Agarwala reiterated
that the important aspect of the aforesaid Regulation is that an
employee must have completed 15 years of service on or after
1st of November, 1993, in order to qualify for such pension. B
9. Mr. Agarwala submitted that by no stretch of imagination
would the general condition set out in paragraph 14 of the
Pension Regulations, 1995, apply in a case of voluntary I

retirement, when a specific provision had been made in the
Regulations for the same.
c
10. In support of his aforesaid submissions thatthe cut-
off date indicated in the voluntary retirement scheme was final,
Mr. Agarwala relied on the decision of this Court in Vice
Chairman & Managing Director A.P. SIDC Ltd. vs. R.
Varaprasad and ·others, [2003 (XI) SCC 572], where in a '
similar case involving voluntary retirement, this Court held that D
when the employees opted for VRS on their own without any
compulsion knowing fully well about the Scheme, guidelines and
circulars governing the same, it was not open to them to make
'· any claim contrary to the terms accepted. It was also observed ,
that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is a matter of contract E
between the Corporation and the employees and it was not for ,
the Court to rewrite the terms of the contract which had been
_. arrived at by the contracting parties.
11. Mr. Agarwala submitted that this case was a fit case-
for interference by this Court since both the Tribunal as well as F
the High Court appear not to have considered or taken note of
"' ~
the· fact that the respondent was not eligible for pension as he
had not completed 15 years of qualifying service and it was not
open either to the Tribunal or the High Court to apply a different
standard for the writ petitioners, and to treat them as employees '
coming under the general provisions as contained in paragraph G
14 of the Pension Regulations, 1995.
12. Mr. Agarwala's submissions'were strongly opposed by
\ Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned advocate appearing for the
.... respondent. She emphatically contended that in a case involving :
H
1158 . ··SUPREME COURT REPORTS ·. [2008] 17.S.C.R.
\
/_ A voluntar}t retirement Regulation 29 would not apply and that, in
fact, Regulation 14 would be relevant. Ms. Bhati urged that
Regulation.29 of the. Pension Regulations dealt not with
voluntary retirement under a Scheme_but with cases of
. premature retirement which would be quite clear from the .
B wording thereof; Ms. Bhati urged tha!Sub-regulation (1) of
,Regulation 29 provides for a situation where-an •employee
in a
wishes to r.etire from service even !he absence.of Voluntary
Retirement Scheme. The Regulation· contemplates that iri such
. a case the employee is not only required to complete .15 years
of service but is also required to give notice of not less than 3
C months in writing to the Appointing .Autliority, and, thereafter,
retire from"service. . . . ' ' ' . .
. 13. Ms. Bhatialso urged that the terms and conditions of
the Voluntary Retirement Scheme were quite different from the
voluntary retirement contemplated· under. Regulation· 29.
D. · Learned counsel urged that the impugned judgment of the High
Court had.been passed on.a correct interpretation of the
Regulations and did not warrani any inteiference.. . : ,' ·.. .' .
· ·• 14. Ha~ing care.fully ~~~sid:ered ih~'.3~bm·i~si~ns-rn~de ~~
behalf of the respective parties, 1! appears to us that Ms; Bhat1's
.E submissions have substance.• ... " · ·
· 15: The only question which is required to be determined
in the instant case is whether Regulation 29 of the Pension
Regulations, 1995, could liave been applied iri the case of the
respondent or whether Regulation 14 has been rightly applied
F both by the Tribunal and the High Court.·
· 16. Tfie· BOBEVRs:2001 Uself does not /give any
indication, other than what has been stated in paia'graph 2, as
to which' of !lie employees of the appellant-Bank would be .
entitled to opt for voluntary retirement. It orily mentions that all__ _
G permarien1 e'm.ployees of the Bcink,,who as ciri 31sfMarch,
_2001, w.ouldhave.completed/Wauld be completing minimum 15
· years· of service or those who have ·completed/would be
completing 40 years of age, would•be eligible to apply for
voluntary retirement under the BOBEVRS-2001. ·
17. The conditions relating to completing 15 years of
H
BANK OF BARODA & ORS. v. GANPAT SINGH DEORA 1159
[AlTAMAS KABIR, J.]

service for being eligible to apply for BOBEVRS-2001 are A
special to the Scheme as also to the case of those employees
;l
who wished to apply for voluntary retirement under the aforesaid
Scheme, if they had completed or would be completing 40
years of age. The latter condition appears to have been ·
incorporated in view of the provisions of Regulations 14 and_
B
32 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, to enable employees who ,
had completed 10 years of service to also become eligible to
apply for premature retirement under the Pension Regulations,
1995.
)
18. However, we are inclined to agree with Ms. Bhati that
Regulation 29 does not contemplate voluntary retirement under.
c
the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and applies only to such
employees who themselves wish to retire de hors any Scheme
of Voluntary Retirement, after having completed 15 years of·
qualifying service for the said purpose. There is a distinct
difference between the two situations and Regulation 29 would D
1

not cover the case of an employee opting to retire on the basis
of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
19. Furthermore, Regulation 2 of the Voluntary Retirement'
Scheme, 2001, of the appellant-Bank merely prescribes a
period of qualifying service for an employee to be eligible to E
1

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 the said
Regulations, in two different situations. While Regulatio~ 14
provides that in order to be eligible for pension an employe~
would have to render a minimum of 1O years service,!
F
...... Regulation 29 is applicable to the employees choosing to retire
"' from service pre-maturely, 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 G
the Scheme framed by the Bank and not on 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.
While Regulation 2 of the BOBEVRS-2001 speaks of eligibilitY H
1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A 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. However, Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulations,
B 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,
we are once again left to tall back on the Pension Regulations,
1995, and the amended provisions of Regulation 28 which
c brings within the scope of Superannuation Pension employees
who opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which will be
clear from the 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
D 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.
20. We are, therefore, of the view that not having
completed the required length of qualifying service as provided
E under Regulation 28 of the 1995 Regulations, the respondent
was not eligible for pension under the Pension Regulations,
1995, of the appellant Bank.
21. In the facts of the case and the terms of the BOBEVRS-
2001 and the Pension Regulations, 1995, We are unable to
agree with the interpretation of the BOBEVRS-2001 Scheme
F
and the Pension Regulations, 1995, as has been done by the
learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court,
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
G 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. .....
H