AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Jayachandran, J.
The appellant State Bank of Travancore (now, State Bank of India) assails the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.23558/2013 dated 15.11.2021 in this writ appeal. The above judgment directed the appellant herein to pay the entire arrears of pension and future pension to the respondent herein under the State Bank of Travancore (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, (referred to as the 'Pension Regulations, 1995' for short), disregarding the appellant's objection that the said Regulations will not apply to the respondent herein, since he retired voluntarily from service before the Regulations came into force.
The essential facts are compiled in the following tabular statement:
Sl.
No.
Date
Event
Remarks
1
10.11.1980
The respondent joined service as Clerk cum Cashier in the appellant/SBT
2
12.05.1994
Respondent filed
application seeking voluntary retirement under the invalid pension scheme, together with all pensionary benefits.
Note: After submitting Ext.P2 request, the appellant/respondent remained absent from service.
Ext.P2
3
15.06.1994
SBT issued letter to respondent in response to Ext.P2, informing that the modalities of the invalid pension scheme are yet to be finalised and advising him to await further instructions.
Ext.P3
4
11.11.1994
SBT issued memo alleging unauthorised absence since 31.03.1994 and calling upon the respondent to report for duty within three days and to appear before the bank's doctor for medical examination.
Note: It is the respondent's claim that the had complied with the above instruction.
Ext.P4
5
16.02.1995
In connection with the respondent's unauthorised absence, he was advised to report before the Branch Manager concerned, to appear before the Medical Board, Kottayam.
Ext.P5
6
23.02.1995
Respondent claims that he had appeared before the Medical Board.
Nil
7
31.08.2011
The respondent requested the MD, SBT to take a decision on Ext.P2 application seeking voluntary retirement.
Note: In paragraph No.2, the respondent asserts that he submitted his resignation on medical grounds on 12.05.1994 (Date of Ext.P2)
Ext.P6
8
24.09.2012
SBT issued letter furnishing the particulars of the respondent to enable him to get the terminal benefits.
Note: Ext.P7 recites that the respondent ceased to be in service on account of voluntary retirement.
Ext.P7
9
26.11.2012
Lawyer's Notice issued by the respondent calling upon SBT to consider Ext.P2 request and grant the respondent all benefits including PF and gratuity.
Ext.P8
10
06.05.2013
Respondent filed application for invalid pension under clause 30 of the SBT (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995.
Ext.P12
11
11.06.2013
SBT issued letter refunding the PF amount due to the respondent.
Note: Here again, the respondent is referred to have been voluntarily retired from service (VRS).
Ext.P9
Heard Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.George Cherian, learned Senior counsel for the respondent.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent filed Ext.P2 application seeking voluntary retirement, whereafter he remained absent from service. He was treated to have been voluntarily retired from service, dehors Ext.P4 memo issued alleging unauthorised absence. The Pension Regulations, 1995 was notified only on 23.03.1996, on which date, the respondent/employee was not in service. It was further contended that clause 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, which provides for pension on voluntary retirement stipulates a minimum qualifying service of 20 years, which the respondent did not have. That apart, the respondent has not exercised the option under clause 3(2) of the 1995 Regulations; nor did he comply with the condition regarding refund of the employer's contribution to P.F. together with interest as mandated in Sub-Clause (c) to Clause 3(2). Clause 30, which deals with invalid pension requires only ten years service, which the respondent had. However, the respondent had not applied with the medical certificate of incapacity prescribed by clause 30(2). Besides, the option as mandated by clause 3(2) as referred above is also not exercised by the respondent. Having not complied with the above requirements, the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of the Pension Regulations, 1995. He had not even laid an application under the new Pension Regulations, which was not in force when he tendered Ext.P2 application seeking voluntary retirement. According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge exceeded the jurisdiction in directing Ext.P2 application as an option exercised under the new Pension Regulations.
Per Contra, the learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that Ext.P3 reply issued by the appellant/Bank informing respondent that the modalities of invalid pension scheme are yet to be finalised, itself, would indicate that Ext.P2 request for voluntary retirement was not accepted and not readily acted upon by the appellant/Bank. Exts.P4 and P5 notices issued by the appellant/Bank alleging unauthorised absence would further strengthen respondent's claim that he was in service when the Pension Regulations, 1995 came into force. The factum of introduction of this Scheme was not intimated to the respondent, wherefore, he could not exercise the option under clause 3 of the Regulations. Pursuant to Ext.P5, the respondent appeared before the Medical Board, as requested therein. However, what transpired thereafter was not made known to the respondent; nor is there any details pleaded in this regard in the counter affidavit preferred by the appellant herein. Learned Senior counsel would submit that the Provident Fund amount and the gratuity due to the respondent was disbursed only on 11.06.2013, by which time, Pension Regulations, 1995 was very much in force. As regards unauthorised absence, the learned counsel would submit that there should have been a disciplinary proceeding, if the respondent's absence was seriously treated by the appellant as unauthorised. The learned counsel would finally submit that the learned Single Judge had correctly interpreted the factual and legal position, consistent with the purpose of the voluntary retirement scheme, which warrants no interference by this Court.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, we find considerable force in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant/Bank. The first aspect which we take note of is that the respondent chose to remain absent from service ever since 12.05.1994, when he preferred Ext.P2 request for voluntary retirement, purportedly under an invalid pension scheme. As a matter of fact, there was no such scheme in vogue as on the date of Ext.P2 application. It goes without saying that an employee has no vested right to seek voluntary retirement and the same should be enabled by a scheme, subject to various parameters including administrative convenience, financial position of the organisation etc. Only when an application for voluntary retirement is allowed, can an employee choose to remain absent and he cannot discontinue the service on the assumption that his application will be allowed. In the instant case, the respondent chose to remain absent ever since he filed Ext.P2 application on 12.05.1994. It is after long 17 years that the respondent requested the appellant/Bank, vide Ext.P6 dated 31.08.2011, to take a decision on Ext.P2 application.
We also notice that the respondent came to know that Ext.P2 application for voluntary retirement has not been accepted by the appellant/Bank, at least when he received Exts.P4 and P5 notices alleging unauthorised absence. We are of the firm opinion that the respondent should have been vigilant then; and had he been so, he would have definitely come to know of the Pension Regulations, 1995 and would have taken steps to avail the benefit of the same. We do not see any legal obligation on the part of the appellant/Bank to inform the respondent about the introduction of the Pension Regulations, 1995, so as to persuade him to avail the benefits, especially in the light of Ext.P2 application for voluntary retirement and his continuous absence thereafter. Although, the respondent claims that he had appeared before the medical board on 23.02.1995 as required in Ext.P5 notice of the appellant/Bank, he slept over his rights, if any, to pursue his application vide Ext.P2. A reminder seeking action on Ext.P2 surfaced only after a period of 17 years, when he issued Ext.P6 letter and thereafter, by issuing Ext.P8 lawyer's notice. We are of the opinion that the inordinate delay and laches disentitles the respondent from the reliefs sought for.
Coming to the Pension Regulations, 1995, clause 3, which speaks of the application of the regulations, mandates a condition, vide Sub-clause 2, that the employee should exercise an option within the stipulated period and that he has to refund the employer's contribution to P.F., together with interest. Clause 29 deals with pension on voluntary retirement, which stipulates a qualifying service of twenty years, together with a notice of not less than three months in writing to the competent authority. Clause 29(2) specifically prescribes that the notice of voluntary retirement shall require acceptance by the appointing authority. The employer has an option to dispense with the notice period, if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the said period will not cause any administrative inconvenience to the organization. Now, coming to invalid pension under Clause 30 of the 1995 regulations, a minimum of 10 years of qualifying service is prescribed and that he should be retiring from service on account of any physical or mental infirmity, which permanently incapacitates him from service. Such an application has to be supported by a medical certificate of incapacity from an approved Medical Officer.
We have referred to the above provisions of the 1995 scheme, only to point out that a request for voluntary retirement cannot be presumed to have been granted automatically and the same is subject to various conditions stipulated in Clauses 3, 29 and 30. No option under clause 3 was exercised by the respondent. Nor was any refund made. Insofar as clause 29 is concerned, the respondent does not have the minimum qualifying service stipulated and for clause 30, there is no record indicating that the respondent is suffering from any bodily or mental infirmity, which permanently incapacitates him from service. We also notice that there was no scheme enabling voluntary retirement when the respondent applied for the same vide Ext.P2; nor is there any scheme providing for invalid pension at that time. Respondent had neither applied nor opted for pension after the 1995 regulations came into force.
In such circumstances, we find it difficult to sustain the findings of the learned Single Judge. We are aware that by issuance of Exts.P3 and P4, the Bank would not have considered the respondent as having voluntarily retired. However, to avail the benefit of invalid pension, there should be a scheme enabling the same in force as on the date of retirement. A scheme which came to force subsequent to Ext.P2, the benefit of which was never applied for by the respondent, cannot enure to his advantage.
For the reasons afore-referred, we find that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. Consequently, we allow this appeal and dismiss the writ petition.