Supreme Court of India
M.R. PRABHAKAR AND OTHERSversusCANARA BANK AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 443
- Decided
- 3 October 2012
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- K S RADHAKRISHNAN
Holding
Officers who resigned before the statutory settlement and the 1995 pension regulations are not covered by the pension scheme and therefore are not entitled to pension benefits.
Summary
The appellants were officers of Canara Bank who resigned between 1986 and June 1993, i.e., before the statutory settlement dated 29‑Oct‑1993 and the Canara Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 came into force. They claimed entitlement to a pension in lieu of the Contributory Providable Fund, relying on the pension regulations and arguing that ‘voluntary retirement’ should be read to include resignation. The Court examined the definitions of ‘retirement’ and ‘resignation’ in the regulations, the applicability of Regulation 22 (forfeiture of service), and the effect of the statutory settlement and joint note. It held that the appellants were governed by the 1979 service regulations at the time of their resignation and were not covered by the 1995 pension scheme, which applied only to employees who were in service on or after 1‑Jan‑1986 and retired before 1‑Nov‑1993. Consequently, they could not claim any pre‑existing legal, statutory or fundamental right to the pension benefits. The appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether officers who resigned before the statutory settlement and the 1995 pension regulations are entitled to pension under the Canara Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995.
- Whether the term ‘voluntary retirement’ under the regulations includes resignation for the purpose of claiming pension.
- Whether Regulation 22, which disqualifies resigned employees from the pension fund, applies to the appellants.
- Whether the appellants have any pre‑existing legal, statutory or fundamental right to the pension benefits.
Legislation cited
Subjects
pensionresignationvoluntary retirementbanking service lawCanara BankIndustrial Disputes ActRegulation 22Statutory settlementEmployees' Pension Regulations 1995
Judgment
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 1072
A M.R. PRABHAKAR AND OTHERS
v.
CANARA BANK AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7188-7191 of 2012 etc.)
OCTOBER 3, 2012
B
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
Service Law:
c Pension - In lieu of Contributory Provident Fund -
Introduced by Banks, pursuant to Statutory Settlement, Joint
Note andPension Regulations, 1995- Entitlement to pension
to the employees resigning prior to the Settlement and
Regulations - Held: Not entitled as they were not covered by
D the Scheme of pension under the Settlement and the
Regulations - They could not establish any pre-existing legal,
statutory or fundamental rights to claim the benefits of the
Regulations - Canara Bank (Employees') Pension
Regulations, 1995 - Regulations 22 and 29.
E Indian Banks Association, representing 58 banks
and their workmen entered into a Memorandum of
Settlement on 29.10.1993 under Industrial Disputes Act
read with Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. The
Association agreed to introduce a pension Scheme in
F banks in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF). A
Joint Note was also made with regard to the introduction
of pension as a second retiral benefit in lieu of CPF.
Thereafter, the respondent-Bank made Canara Bank
(Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995.
G
· The appellants were the officers of the respondent-
Bank who had resigned and stood relieved from their
respective posts prior to 3.6.1993 i.e. prior to signing of
the Statutory Settlement dated 29.10.1993, the Joint Note
H 1072
M.R. PRABHAKAR v. CANARA BANK 1073
dated 29.10.1993 followed by the Regulations. They filed A
writ petition claiming pension in lieu of CPF. Single Judge
of High Court allowed their claim. In writ appeal, Division
Bench of High Court declined their claim. Hence the
present appeals.
B
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellants, when tendered their letters
of resignation, were governed by the Canara Bank
(Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. Regulation 20(2) of
Regulations 1979 dealt with resignation from service and c
they tendered their resignation in the light of that
provision. The appellants have failed to show any pre-
existing rights in their favour either in the Statutory
Settlement/Joint Note dated 29.10.1993 or under the
Canara Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. o
Appellants had resigned from service prior to 1.11.1993
and, therefore, were not covered by the statutory
settlement, Joint Note dated 29.10.1993 and the
Regulations 1995. They could not establish any pre-
existing legal, statutory or fundamental rights in their E
favour to claim the benefit of Regulations 1995. [Para 20]
[1088-B-D]
UCO Bank and Others v. Sanwar Mal (2004) 4 SCC 412:
2004 (2) SCR 1125- relied on.
F
Sheelkumar Jain v. New India Assurance Company
Limited and Ors.(2011) 12 SCC 197: 2011 (9) SCR 574 -
distinguished.
Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India and Ors.
(1996) 6 SCC 459 - referred to. G
2. It is not correct to say that in absence of a legal
definition of 'voluntary retirement' or in the absence of
legally prescribed consequences of 'resignation', it must
be understood in the sense of voluntary relinquishment
of service; and that there can be no distinction between H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 8 S.C.R.
A 'voluntary retirement' and 'resignation'. There is no
ambiguity in the definition clause under Regulation 2(y)
which has statutorily brought in the 'voluntarily
retirement' as 'retirement'. Though the concept of
'resignation' is well known in Service Jurisprudence, the
B same has not been brought within the definition of
'retirement' under Regulation 2(y). Further, the words
'retired' and 'retirement' have some resemblance in their
meanings, but not 'resignation'. Regulation 3(1 )(a)
specifically used the expression 'retirement' and the
c expression 'resignation' has not been incorporated either
in the definition clause or in Regulation 3(1)(a). [Paras 14
and 15] [1084-E-H; 1085-A-B]
Case Law Reference:
D (1996) s sec 459 Referred to Para 6
2004 (2) SCR 1125 Relied on Para 15
2011 (9) SCR 57 4 Distinguished Para 19
E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
7188-7191 of 2012.
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.11.2006 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos. 1037,
1934, 1941, 1969 of 2002.
F
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 7185-7186, 7192-7193 and 7194-7195 of
2012.
G A.B. Dial, V.K. Rao, Raju Ramchandran, Naveen R. Nath,
Lalit Mohini Bhat, Darpan K. M., Arnita Sharma, Sanjay
Sharawat, Ananya, Rajiv Nanda, Ayusha Kumar, Madhu Sikri,
Rajesh Kumar, Yashraj Deora, Prashant Narang, Sarv Mitter
(for Mitter & Mitter Co.) Ram Lal Roy, R.N. Keshwani, 0.P.
H Gaggar for the Appearing Parties.
M.R. PRABHAKAR v. CANARA BANK 1075
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. We may, for the disposal of these appeals, deal with
the facts in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30983-
30986 of 2008, since common questions arise for B
consideration in all these appeals.
3. We are, in these appeals, concerned with the legality
of the claim for pension in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund
(for short 'CPF') of some officers of the Canara Bank who had c
resigned and stood relieved from their respective posts prior
to 3.6.1993, i.e. prior to signing of the Statutory Settlement
dated 29.10.1993 under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the
Joint Note dated 29.10.1993, followed by the Canara Bank
Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short 'Regulations 1995'), D
which was notified in the Gazette of India on 29.9.1995.
4. The learned single Judge of the High Court held in
favour of the appellants but the Division Bench of the High Court
held otherwise. Hence, these appeals.
E
5. We may, as already indicated, refer to the facts of the
case in civil appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30983-30986
of 2008. The appellants' date of appointment and their
resignation are as under:
Position of the Petitioner Date of Date of
F
as per Cause List Appointment Resignation
1. M.R. Prabhakar 27-05-1970 04-06-1991
G
2. S. Ananda Rao 09-09-1970 22-09-1990
3. N. Anand 17-12-1969 19-04-1993
4. S. K. Mehta 15-12-1965 01-05-1991
H
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
A 5. N.V. Rangaswamy 24-07-1968 09-01-1991
6. S. Sathyanarayan 07-0701970 03-06-1993
7. K. S. Seshadri 18-02-1970 20-07-1992
(since deceased)
B
8. K. Suresh Rao 02-05-1970 30-06-1990
9. P. Govinda Pai 03-04-1968 30-03-1988
c 10. K. V. Puranik 01-02-1963 24-07-1986
The above mentioned appellants had submitted their
resignations between 24.7.1986 and 3.6.1993 prior to the
signing of the Statutory Settlement dated 29.10.1993 under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Joint Note dated
D 29.10.1993, with regard to the introduction of 'pension' as a
second retiral benefit in lieu of CPF. Appellants, placing reliance
on the various provisions of Regulations 1995, submitted that
the pension regulations were introduced as an additional benefit
to the serving and retired employees. It was pointed out that
E an employee who had resigned from the bank was not
disentitled to pension except by operation of Regulation 22. If
this regulation was held operative against the appellants, it
would result in absurd consequences since by forfeiture of
entire past service, such employees would not be entitled to
F any pensionary benefits including gratuity and provident fund.
Further, it was pointed out that Regulation 22 admittedly never
existed when the appellants had submitted their resignation
letters and, therefore, the said regulation could not operate to
disentitle the appellants from any pensionary benefits. Further,
G it was also pointed out when appellants had submitted their
letters of resignation prior to 1.1.1993 the concept of 'voluntary
retirement' did not exist under the Bank Officers Regulations,
1979 (for short 'Regulations 1979'). Regulation 1979, it was
pointed out, neither defined the expression 'resignation' legally
H nor the expression 'voluntary retirement'. In other words, the
M.R. PRABHAKAR v. CANARA BANK 1077
[K.S.RA_DHAKRISHNAN, J.]
concept of 'voluntary retirement' was required to be defined A
only because of the introduction of pension as a retiral benefit
with effect from 29.9.1995.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted
that, in the absence of legal definition of 'voluntary retirement' B
or in the absence of any legally prescribed consequence of
'resignation', it may be understood in the sense of 'voluntary
retirement' of service. Further, it was also urged that the
conceptual difference between 'resignation' and 'voluntary
retirement' comes in only if it is made by legal prescription and C
not in the ordinary sense as perceived in the realm of
appointment. Learned counsel also pointed out that pension
regulations must be read and interpreted keeping in mind its
intended object and cannot be applied to deprive those
employees who left services honourably either on the grounds
of superannuation, resignation or even pre-mature retirement. D
Considerable reliance was placed on a recent judgment of this
Court in Sheelkumar Jain v. New India Assurance Company
Limited and Others (2011) 12 SCC 197 and submitted that the
principle laid down in that judgment would squarely be
applicable to the facts of the present case. Further, it was also E
pointed out that the beneficial construction placed by this Court
in Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India and Others
(1996) 6 sec 459 is also applicable by way of extending the
pensionary benefits to the appellants.
F
7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents
banks submitted that the High Court had rightly denied the claim
of pension to the appellants who had resigned from their
respective service before the settlement reached between All
India Bank Officers Federation and Indian Bank Association (for G
short 'IBA') and that Regulations 1995 would not apply to the
appellants. Further, it was pointed out that the appellants had
resigned prior to 1.1.1993 and were not covered by the
Statutory Settlement or the Joint Note dated 29.10.1993 and
the Regulations 1995. It was pointed out that the reliance placed
H
by the appellants either on Regulation 29 or ReQulation 22 in
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
A support of their contentions was completely misplaced since
the appellants were not covered by the scheme of pension ·
introduced by the respective banks with effect from 1.11.1993.
Learned counsel appearing for the banks submitted that the
judgment of this Court in UCO Bank and Others v. Sanwar Mal
B (2004) 4 SCC 412 squarely applies to the facts of the present
case. In that case, the very same regulation came up for
interpretation and the identical reliefs sought for, which were
rejected by the Court. Further, it was also pointed out that
Shee/kumar Jain's case (supra) was interpreting an insurance
c scheme which is, not comparable with the Regulations 1995
applicable to the banks.
8. The appellants, in these two main appeals were officers
of the Canara Bank, who had resigned and stood relieved from
their respective service between 24.7,1986 and 3.6.1993. IBA,
D representing 58 banks and their workmen had entered into a
Memorandum of Settlement on 29.10.1993 under Section 2(p)
and Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with
Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central} Rules, 1957. During
the course of negotiations of service conditions of the workmen
E employees in February 1990, IBA agreed to introduce a
pension scheme in banks for the workmen employees in lieu
of employers' contribution to the provident fund. The pension
scheme agreed to by IBA was to be broadly based on Central
GovernmenUReserve Bank of India pattern, details of the
F scheme were worked out later. A Joint Note was also made
with regard to the introduction of pension as a second retiral
benefit in lieu of CPF. Clause (4) of the Joint Note reads as
follows:
"(iv) The PensiQn Scheme will also be extended to
G
retired Officers' who retired on or after 1.1.1986. They will
be entitled for monthly pension as well as commutation
facility as from 1.1.1993. Those officers who avail of the
Pension Scheme will be required to refund Bank's
contribution to the Provident Fund with interest thereon
H
M.R. PRABHAKAR v. CANARA BANK 1079
[K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
drawn by them together with simple interest at 6% from the A
date of withdrawal of the Provident Fund to the date of
refund."
9. In furtherance of the Statutory Settlement and Joint Note
dated 29.10.1993, draft of the Pension Regulations was B
negotiated and settled. Clause 17(1), so far as it is relevant for
the present purpose, is extracted hereunder:
"17(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Service Regulations/Service Rules an employee may be
permitted to voluntarily retire after he has completed 20 C
years of qualifying service, after given three months' notice
in writing to the competent authority."
10. Later, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(f) of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Banking Companies 0
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Board
of Directors of the Canara bank, after consultation with the RBI
and with the previous sanction of the Central Government,
made the regulations called Canara Bank (Employees')
Pension Regulations, 1995. The same were made applicable E
to the employees'/officers and were notified in the Gazette of
India on 29.9.1995. Chapter II of the Regulations deals with the
application and eligibility, the operative portion of Regulation
3(1)(a) to 3(1)(c)reads as under:
"3. Application: These regulations shall apply to F
employees who,-
(1) (a) were in the service of the Bank on or after the
1st day of January 1986 but had retired before the
1st day of November, 1993; and G
(b) exercise an option in writing within one hundred and
twenty days from the notified date to become
member of the Fund; and
(c) refund with!:-! sixty days after the expiry of the said H
/
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
A period of one hundred and twenty days. specified
in clause (b) the entire amount of the Bank's
contribution to the Provident Fund including interest
accrued thereon together with a further simple
interest at the rate of six percent per annum on the
B said amount from the date of settlement of the
Provident Fund account till the date of refund of the
aforesaid amount to the Bank; or
xxxxxx xxx
c XXXXXX XXX"
11. Regulation 22, which finds a place in Chapter IV of the
Regulations, reads as follows:
"22 Forfeiture of service -
D
(1 ). Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination
of an employee from the service of the Bank shall
entail forfeiture of his entire past service and
consequently shall not qualify for pensionary
E benefits;
(2) An interruption in the service of a Bank employee
entails forfeiture of his past service, expect in the
following cases, namely :-
F (a) authorised leave of absence;
(b) suspension. where ii is immediately followed by
reinstatement, whether in the same or a different
post, or where the bank employee dies or is
G permitted to retire or is retired on attaining the age
of compulsory retirement while under suspension;
(c) transfer to non-qualifying service in an
establishment under the control of the Government
or Bank if such transfer has been ordered by a
H
M.R. PRABHAKAR v. CANARA BANK 1081
[K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
competent authority in the public interest; A
(d) joining time while on transfer from one post to
another.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
regulation (2), tl're appointing authority may, by B
order, commute retrospectively the periods of
absence without leave as extraordinary leave.
(4) (a) In the ab.sence of a specific indication to the
contrary in the service record, an interruption C
between two spells of service rendered by a bank
employee shall be treated as automatically
condoned and the pre-interruption service treated
as qualifying service;
(b) Nothing in clause (a) shall apply to interruption D
caused by resignation, dismissal or Removal from
the service or for participation in a strike:
Provided that before making an entry in the service
record of the Bank employee regarding forfeiture E
of past service because of his participation in
strike, an opportunity of representation may be
given to such bank employees."
12. Classes of Pension are dealt with in Chapter V of the
F
Regulations. Regulation 28 deals with superannuation pension
and the same reads 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 G
Service Regulations or Settlement."
29 Pension on Voluntary Retirement -
· (1) On or after the 1" day of November 1993, at any H
time after the an employee has completed twenty
1082 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
A years of qualifying service he may, by giving notice
of not less than three months in writing to the
appointing authority, retire from service :
Provided that this sub - regulation shall not apply
to an employee who is on deputation or on study
B
leave abroad unless after having been transferred
or having returned to India he has resumed charge
of the post in India and has served for a period of
not less than one year :
c Provided further that this sub - regulation shall not
apply to an employee who seeks retirement from
service for being absorbed permanently in an
autonomous body or public sector undertaking or
company or institution or body, whether
D incorporated or not to which he is on deputation at
the time of seeking voluntary retirement :
Provided that this sub - regulation shall not apply
to an employee who.is deemed to have retired in
accordance with clause (1) of regulation 2.
E
2. The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub
- regulation (1) shall require acceptance by the
appointing authority:
F Provided that where the appointing authority does
not refuse to grant the permission for retirement
before the expiry of the period specified in the said
notice, the retirement shall become effective from
the date of expiry of the said period.
G 3. (a) An employee referred to in sub regulation (1)
may make a request in writing to the writing to the
appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary
retirement of less than three months giving reasons
therefore:
H
M.R. PRABHAKAR v. CANARA BANK 1083
[K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
(b) On receipt of a request under clause (a), the A
appointing authority may, subject to the provisions
of sub - regulation (2), consider such request for
the curtailment of the period of notice of three
months on merits and if it is satisfied that the
curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any B
administrative inconvenience, the appointing
authority may relax the requirement of notice of three
months on the condition that the employee shall not
apply for commutation of a part of his pension
before the expiry of the notice of three months. c
4. An employee, who has elected to retire under this
regulation and has given necessary notice to that
effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded
from withdrawing his notice except with the specific
approval of such authority: D
Provided that the request for such withdrawal shall
be made before the intended date of his
retirement.
E
5. The qualifying service of an employee retiring
voluntarily under this regulation shall be increased
by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the
condition that the total qualifying service rendered
by such employee shall not in any case exceed
thirty three years and it does not take him beyond F
the date of superannuation.
6. The pension of an employee retiring under this
regulation shall be based on the average
emoluments as defined under clause (d) of G
regulation 2 of these Regulations and the increase
not exceeding five years in his qualifying service,
shall not entitle him any notional fixation of pay for
the purpose of calculating his pension."
H
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
A 13. In order to appreciate the scope of the above
mentioned Regulations, it is necessary to refer to some of the
definition clauses. The word 'retired' is defined in Regulation
2(x) of the Regulations 1995, which reads as under:
"2(x) "retired" includes deemed to have retired under
B
clause(I)."
The word 'retirement' is defined under Regulation 2(y) of
the Regulations 1995, which reads as follows:
c "2(y) "retirement" means cessation from bank's service,-
(a) On attaining the age of superannuation specified in
Service Regulations or Settlements;
(b) On voluntary retirement in accordance with
D provisions contained in regulation 29 of these
regulations;
(c) On premature retirement by the Bank before
attaining the age of superannuation specified in
E Service Regulations or Settlement."
14. The appellants, in our view, did not retire from the
service, but resigned from the service. Appellants tried to build
up a case that in the absence of a legal definition of 'voluntary
retirement' or in the absence of legally prescribed
F consequences of 'resignation', it must be understood in the
sense of voluntary relinquishment of service. It was pointed out
that there can be no distinction between 'voluntary retirement'
and 'resignation' and those expressions are to be understood
in their ordinary literal sense.
G
15. We find it difficult to accept the contentions raised by
the appellants. There is no ambiguity in the definition clause
under Regulation 2(y) which has statutorily brought in the
'voluntarily retirement' as 'retirement'. Though the concept of
H 'resignation' is well known in Service Jurisprudence, the same
M.R. PRABHAKAR v. CANARA BANK 1085
[K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
has not been brought within the definition of 'retirement' under A
Regulation 2(y). Further, the words 'retired' and 'retirement'
have some resemblance in their meanings, but not 'resignation'.
·Regulation 3(1 )(a) specifically used the expression 'retirement'
and the expression 'resignation' has not been incorporated
either in the definition clause or in Regulation 3(1 )(a). We need B
not labour much on this issue, since the difference between
these two concepts 'resignation' and 'retirement', in the context
of the same Banking Regulations 1995, came up for
consideration before this Court in Sanwar Mal (supra), wherein
this Court has distinguished the words 'resignation' and c
'retirement' and held as follows:
"9 .......... The words "resignation" and "retirement"
carry different meanings in common parlance. An
employee can resign at any point of time, :even on the
second day of his appointment but in the case :of retirement D
he retires only after attaining the age of superannuation or
in the case of voluntary retirement on completion of
qualifying service. The effect of resignation and retirement
to the extent that there is severance of employment but in
service jurisprudence both the expressions are understood . E
differently. Under the Regulations, the expressions
"resignation" and "retirement" have been employed for
different purpose and carry different' meanings. The
pension scheme herein is based on actuarial calculation;
it is a self-financing scheme, which does not depend upon F
budgetary support and consequently it constitutes a
complete code by itself. The scheme essentially covers
retirees as the credit balance to their provident fund
account is larger as compared to employees who
resigned from service. Moreover, resignation brings about G
complete cessation of master and servant relationship
whereas voluntary retirement maintains the relationship
for the purposes of grant of retiral benefits, in view of the
past service. Similarly, acceptance of resignation is
dependent upon discretion of the employer whereas H
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
A retirement is completion of service in terms of
regulations/rules framed by the bank. Resignation can
be tendered irrespective of the length of service whereas
in the case of voluntary retirement, the employee has to
complete qualifying service for retiral benefits . ............ "
B
(emphasis added)
In the above mentioned judgment, this Court has also held that
there are different yardsticks and criteria for submitting the
resignation, vis-a-vis voluntary retirement and exceptions
C thereof. In that context, the scope of Regulation 22 of
Regulations 1995 was also considered and the Court held as.
follows:
9 ................. In our view, Regulation 22 provides
D for disqualification of employees who have resigned from
service and for those who have been dismissed or
removed from service. Hence, we do not find any merit in
the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent that
Regulation 22 makes an arbitrary and unreasonable
classification repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution by
E
keeping out such class of employees. The view we have
taken is supported by the judgment of this Court in the case
of Reserve Bank of India v. Cecil Dennis Solomon
(2004) 9 SCC 461. Before concluding we may state that
Clause 22 is not in the nature of penalty as alleged. It only
F disentitles an employee who has resigned from service
from becoming a member of the Fund. Such employees
have received their retiral benefits earlier. The pension
scheme, as stated above, only provides for a second
retiral benefit. Hence there is no question of penalty being
G imposed on such employees as alleged. The pension
scheme only provides for an avenue for investment to
retirees. They are provided avenue to put in their savings
and as a term or condition which is more in the nature of
an eligibility criteria the scheme disentitles such category
H of employees out of it."
M.R. PRABHAKAR v. CANARA BANK 1087
[K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
16. We may indicate that in Sanwar Mal (supra), the A
employee, who was working on Class Ill post, resigned from
the service of UCO Bank on 25.2.1988 after giving one month's
notice and also accepted his provident fund without protest. On
coming into force of the Regulations 1995, Sanwar Mal opted
for pension scheme. Since Sanwar Mal had resigned in the B
year 1988, UCO Bank declined its option for admitting him as
a member of the fund.
17. This Court, as already indicated, (!fter referring to the
various provisions of the Regulations 1995 and after examining
the meaning of the expressions 'resignation' and 'retirement', C
held that since Regulation 22 provided for disqualification of
employees who had resigned, such employees could not claim
membership of the fund.
18. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants have D
placed heavy reliance on Sheelkumar Jain (supra) and
submitted that in the light of that judgment, the decision
rendered in Sanwar Mal (supra) requires reconsideration. We
find it difficult to accept the contention raised by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants. E
19. We may point out in Sheelkumar Jain (supra) that this
Court was dealing with an insurance scheme and not the
pension scheme, which is applicable in the banking sector. The
provisions of both the scheme and the Regulation are not pari
material. In Sheelkumar Jain case (supra), while referring to F
Para 5, this Court came to the conclusion that the same does
·not make distinction between 'resignation' and 'voluntary
retirement' and it only provides that an employee who wants to
leave or discontinue his service amounts to 'resignation' or
'voluntary retirement'. Whereas, Regulation 20(2) of the Canara G
Bank (Officers) Service Regulations 1979 applicable to banks,
had specifically referred to the words 'resignation', unlike Para
5 of the Insurance Rules. Further, it is also to be noted that, in
that judgment, this Court in Para 30 held that the Court will have
to construe the statutory provisions in each case to find out H
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R.
A whether the termination of service of an employee was a
termination by way of resignation or a termination by way of
voluntary retirement.
20. The appellants, when tendered their letters of
resignation, were governed by the Regulations 1979.
8
Regulation 20(2) of Regulations 1979 dealt with resignation
from service and they tendered their resignation in the light of
that provision. We are of the view that the appellants have failed
to show any pre-existing rights in their favour either in the
Statutory SettlemenUJoint Note dated 29.10.1993 or under the
C Regulations 1995. Appellants had resigned from service prior
to 1.11.1993 and, therefore, were not covered by the statutory
settlement, Joint Note dated 29.10.1993 and the Regulations
1995. They could not establish any pre-existing legal, statutory
or fundamental rights in their favour to claim the benefit of
D Regulations 1995. Consequently, the reliance placed by the
appellants either on Regulation 29 or Regulation 22 in support
of their contentions, cannot be accepted, since they are not
covered by the scheme of pension introduced by the banks with
effect from 1.11.1993.
E
21. We, therefore, find no merit in these appeals and the
same are dismissed, with no order as to costs.
K.K.T. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "pension"Sign in to search