Sapna Roy vs Union of India and others

Sanjib Banerjee, J.—The petitioner joined the respondent bank on January 2, 1984 and was permitted to retire on April 28, 2007 on the ground of "total incapacitation."

The petitioner opted for pension pursuant to a circular of August 27, 2010. The circular was a result of a bipartite settlement with workmen''s unions of member banks of the Indian Banks Association and an agreement with the officers associations of the member banks. There is no dispute that if the petitioner had not obtained voluntary retirement, albeit on medical grounds, she would have been eligible to opt for the pension.

The petitioners request to obtain pension was declined on the ground that she had obtained voluntary retirement. Clause 7 of the bipartite settlement or joint note specifies the persons who would not be eligible to exercise the pension option:

"7. Not Eligible for Pension Option:

Indian Banks'' Association has clarified that officers who retired voluntarily; in terms of Regulation 19 of Officers'' Service Regulations and Employees / Officers who resigned, dismissed, terminated and compulsorily retired, are not eligible for pension option."

Regulation 19 of the Officers Regulations deals with all forms of retirement. The first proviso to Regulation 19(1) of the said Regulations pertains to voluntary retirement and forced retirement. Regulation 19(2) of the said Regulations requires the constitution of a committee to recommend names of those who are to be weeded out by early retirement. Apparently, nothing in Regulation 19 covers a retirement on medical grounds or due to the incapacitation of the officer concerned.

Though clause 7 of the bipartite settlement or joint note is not happily worded, it must be interpreted reasonably and not read as a statute or an edict on stone. The substance of clause 7 of the bipartite settlement or joint note is that those employees who had some years of service left but chose to retire nonetheless, those employees who were weeded out prematurely and those employees who left the service upon a punishment being awarded in disciplinary proceedings would not be eligible to opt for the pension. In all three cases, an element of unwillingness to work or default is attributable to the concerned employee.

However, when an employee was permitted to retire on the ground of incapacitation, it implied that the premature retirement was involuntary in the sense that the medical condition of the concerned employee did not permit her to continue in service and not that she chose to opt out despite being able to otherwise continue.

Since the petitioner in this case was permitted to obtain premature retirement upon the petitioner being discovered to be totally incapacitated, it appears that the petitioner may not be covered by the exception clause in clause 7 of the bipartite settlement or joint note.

As the said bipartite settlement or joint note was a result of an agreement between the Indian Banks Association on the one hand and the workmen and officers of its member banks on the other, let copies of all the papers pertaining to this petition along with a copy of this order be forwarded by the respondent bank to the Indian Banks Association within a week from date with the intimation that the petition will appear a fortnight hence for the IBAs stand to be disclosed. It will also be open to the IBA to carry an affidavit indicating its stand.

Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.