M K Ramachandran vs Union Of India

Devan Ramachandran, J

The petitioner, who retired from the services of the second respondent – Bank, asserts that the said Bank is legally bound to update his pensionary benefits in terms of Regulation 35(1) of its Pension Regulations and the Bipartite Settlements from time to time. He argues that Regulation 56 of the Pension Regulations renders it obligatory on the part of the Bank to revise and update the pensionary benefits, since it is “premised on the Central Civil Pension Scheme and hence they are also bound by the settlements as also the Pay Commission Reports” (sic). He, therefore, prays that the second respondent be directed to update his pension in tune with the revised scale of pay arising out of Bipartite Settlements, in accordance with Regulation 35(1) of the Pension Regulations, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

In response to the afore submissions of Sri.George A.Cherian - learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Deepak Joy K.- learned standing counsel for the second respondent, submitted that it is within the policy decision making realm of his client to decide how the Pension Regulations have to be updated; and in what manner, the said benefits are to be given to the pensioners. He submitted that, therefore, if this Court is so inclined, the competent Authority of his client is willing to hear the petitioner, as also other stakeholders and take a decision on his claim without any avoidable delay.

I must say that the afore suggestion of the learned standing counsel for the second respondent is most apposite in the given circumstances because, I am not sure if this Court can pass affirmative orders at this stage, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am thus without doubt that the second respondent must take a decision on the claims of the petitioner at the first instance, so that he can then impel his grievances, if any thereafter, before a competent Forum.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and direct the competent Authority of the second respondent to immediately hear the petitioner, or his authorised representative, taking note of the fact that he is nearing 90 years in age and take a decision on his claim, particularly that he is entitled to a higher scale after he had turned 85 in age; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

I make it clear that, if, through the afore exercise, any benefit is found eligible to the petitioner, either by amendment of the Pension Regulation or through such other apposite methods, the same shall be made available to him without any avoidable delay, but within two months thereafter.