AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The petitioners were appointed as clerks in the respondent- State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, which is a subsidiary bank of State Bank of India. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as clerk-cum-Godown keeper on 05.09.1969, and petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Agriculture Assistant on 15.10.1970. Both the petitioners were promoted on the post Officer, and were scheduled to superannuate on 31.07.2005 and 30.09.2005 respectively. Both the petitioners opted for voluntary retirement under the SBBJ Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SBBJVRS), which was circulated vide Circular dated 23.02.2001. The offer was open from 09.03.2001 to 22.03.2001. The offers of the petitioners were accepted and both of them retired from the service on 31.03.2001.
Some of the employees of Punjab & Sindh Bank, Punjab National Bank, Bank of India, and Union Bank of India, who were the members of the Indian Banks Association, filed writ petitions in various High Courts claiming the benefit of increased qualifying service by a period not exceeding five years under Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995, applicable to such employees. The Punjab & Haryana High Court, Calcutta High Court and the Kerala High Court decided their cases, on which the banks filed 16 appeals in the Supreme Court. In Bank of India and Another Vs. K. Mohandas and Others, , the Supreme Court considered the validity of the judgments, by which increase of qualifying service by five years was allowed to those employees, who were covered by the Pension Regulations, 1995, and had opted for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000. The Supreme Court held as follows:--
"23. The principal question that falls for our determination is: whether the employees (having completed 20 years of service) of these banks (Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, Union Bank of India and United Bank of India who had opted for voluntary retirement under VRS 2000 are entitled to addition of five years of notional service in calculating the length of service for the purpose of the said Scheme as per Regulation 29(5) of Pension Regulations, 1995?
On behalf of banks it was submitted that the employees, having taken benefits under the scheme (VRS 2000), are estopped from raising any issue that their entitlement to pension would not be covered by amended Regulation 28. It was suggested that the employees having taken benefit of the scheme cannot insist for pension under Regulation 29(5). O.P. Swarnakar was relied upon in this regard wherein it has been held that an employee, having taken the ex-gratia payment, or any other benefit under the scheme cannot be allowed to resile from the scheme.
Insofar as the present group of appeals is concerned, the employees are not seeking to resile from the Scheme. They are actually seeking enforcement of the clause in the Scheme that provides that the optees will be eligible for pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995. According to them, they are entitled to the benefits of Regulation 29(5). In our considered view, plea of estoppel is devoid of any substance; as a matter of fact it does not arise at all in the facts and circumstances of the case.
We hold, as it must be, that the employees who had completed 20 years of service and were pension optees and offered voluntary retirement under VRS 2000 and whose offers were accepted by the banks are entitled to addition of five years of notional service in calculating the length of service for the purposes of that Scheme as per Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. The contrary view expressed by some of the High Courts do not lay down the correct legal position."
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the cases of the petitioners, who were the members of the SBBJ(Employees'') Pension Regulations, 1995, are covered by the judgment in Bank of India & Anr. v. K. Mohandas & Ors.(supra), and that they were also entitled, but were not allowed the benefit of five years of qualifying service, despite completing 20 years of service before they had given options under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. It is submitted that restriction on other benefits under clause 7(iii) of the Manpower Planning and SBBJ Voluntary Retirement Scheme(SBBJVRS) vide Circular dated 23.02.2001, restricting applicability of Regulation 29(5) of the SBBJ Pension Regulations, 1995, is discriminatory as against the benefit of qualifying service of five years, provided to the employees of other banks, who were similarly situate without any distinguishing features.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the Manpower Planning and SBBJ Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001 was issued by way of an administrative circular, which cannot override the SBBJ Pension Regulations, 1995, which are statutory in nature. He has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Koul v. State of J & K and Others, 2012(4) Supreme 567, in which it was held that administrative instructions cannot override the statutory provisions.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank, on the other hand, submits that in Bank of India & Anr. v. K. Mohandas & Ors.(supra), the Supreme Court was considering the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000, applicable to Punjab & Sindh Bank, Punjab National Bank, Bank of India, and Union Bank of India. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme applicable to these banks did not contain any provision such as Voluntary Retirement Scheme, of SBBJ VRS, 2001, restricting applicability of increased qualifying service under the Regulation 29(5) of the SBBJ Pension Regulations, 1995. She submits that the bank had accepted the offer of voluntary retirement of the petitioners, 11 years before the writ petition was filed. The petitioners had not only accepted the terms and conditions of the Scheme including clause 7(iii) of Scheme, they had also accepted the entire amount which was paid to them. The petitioners had kept quiet for a period of 11 years before filing the writ petition. They are thus estopped from raising any dispute with regard to the conditions of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which they had as officers of the Bank accepted with open eyes.
We have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and find that the Supreme Court in Bank of India & Anr. v. K. Mohandas & Ors.(supra), was considering the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000, applicable to Punjab & Sindh Bank, Punjab National Bank, Bank of India, and Union Bank of India. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme applicable to these banks did not contain any prohibition or restriction, which may not have made the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995, applicable to the cases of voluntary retirement. The Manpower Planning and SBBJ Voluntary Retirement Scheme(SBBJVRS), issued vide Circular dated 23.02.2001, applicable to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, clearly provided that the benefit of increased qualifying service, as provided under Regulation 29(5) of the SBBJ Pension Regulations, 1995, will not be applicable to those, who seek voluntary retirement under Clause 7 of the Scheme. Clause 7 of the Scheme is quoted below:--
"7. OTHER BENEFITS
i. Gratuity as payable under the extant instructions on the relevant date.
ii. Provident Fund contribution as per State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Employees'') Provident Fund Rules as on relevant date.
iii. Pension in terms of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Employees'') Pension Regulations, 1995 on the relevant date (including commuted value of pension). However the benefit of increased qualifying service as provided under Regulation 29(5) of SBBJ Pension Regulations 1995 will not be applicable to those who seek voluntary retirement under this scheme.
iv. Encashment of balance of Privilege Leave, as applicable on the relevant date.
v. Respective facilities extended to officers/others such as retention of accommodation, telephone, car etc. will be extended to officers/others retiring under SBBJVRS, as per existing instruction and for a maximum period of 2 months, at the discretion of the Competent Authority. However, in such cases of retention of physical facilities, 50% of the amount of ex-gratia payable and leave encashment amount payable will be released only after the employee surrenders the facility in good and acceptable condition. No interest, however, will be paid for the amount so withheld."
We are not impressed with the submission that clause 7(iii) is discriminatory as against the scheme of other banks inasmuch as every scheme has to be considered on its own terms and conditions. No employee has a right to claim voluntary retirement under any scheme. He has to make an offer in terms of the scheme which may be accepted by the Bank. Having accepted the voluntary retirement, the petitioners cannot turn around after 11 years and claim discrimination as against employees of other banks. In Bank of India & Anr. v. K. Mohandas & Ors.(supra), the Supreme Court interpreted the terms of the Scheme of other banks, in which the benefit of Regulation 29(5) was not denied as in the present case to the eligible employees opting for voluntary retirement.
We also find substance in the contention of learned counsel appearing for the respondents that there is no discrimination caused between the employees of the two banks inasmuch as the Scheme of 2001 is different in that respect, than the Scheme of 2000, applicable to the banks, of which the employees had filed 16 appeals leading to judgment in Bank of India & Anr. v. K. Mohandas & Ors.(supra).
The contention of learned counsel appearing for the respondents that after their offers were accepted by the respondent- Bank with open eyes under the Manpower Planning and SBBJ Voluntary Retirement Scheme(SBBJVRS), issued by Circular dated 23.02.2001, the petitioners are estopped from claiming any other relief on the basis of parity or discrimination, does not admit any doubt. The principles of estoppel are clearly attracted in this case. Even otherwise, the writ petition filed after a period of 11 years, does not contain sufficient explanation of the long delay, after which the writ petition was filed. Even if we consider the explanation that the judgment in Bank of India & Anr. v. K. Mohandas & Ors.(supra) was delivered on 27.03.2009, the writ petition was filed two years after the judgment.
The writ petition is dismissed.