The Chairman and Managing Director Bank of Baroda vs V. Vijayan

The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2014 in W.P.Nos. 598, 725, 20913 and 25585 of 2011, holding that the respondents are entitled for 5 years of additional notional service for the purpose of fixing the total period of service for payment of full pension.

The respondents initially worked as Agricultural Officer under the Government of Tamil Nadu. The respondents, thereafter, joined the service of Bank of Baroda as Agricultural Officer and on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service. Since the respondents were not having the required period of service, they were not given full pension. The respondents, by placing reliance on Regulation 26(c) of the Bank of Baroda (Employees'') Pension Regulations, 1995 ( The Regulations for short), requested the bank to pay them full pension by holding that they have completed 33 years of continuous service. The bank rejected their request by holding that the earlier service put in by them cannot be counted for fixing the total service. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the bank, the respondents filed writ petitions before the Writ Court. The learned Single Judge, by placing reliance on the earlier order passed by the Writ Court in P. Thirikooda Rajappan Vs Chairman and Managing Director, Vijaya Bank, Head Office, Bangalore and Others, 2005 (1) LLN 847, allowed the writ petitions. The bank, feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, filed these intra-Court appeals.

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the respondents failed to fulfil the proviso appended to Regulation 26 and as such, they are not eligible for counting their earlier service. It was further contended that the Regulations were not approved by the Central Government and as such, the respondents are not eligible to count the service rendered by them earlier.

The learned counsel for the respondents supported the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

The respondents have claimed full pension on the basis of Regulation 26(c) of the Regulations. Their request was negatived by the bank without giving any reason. However, before the learned Single Judge, the bank contended that the respondents failed to satisfy the three provisos to Regulation 26 and as such, they are not eligible to count their earlier service.

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, primarily on the ground that the issue was earlier considered by the Writ Court in P.Thirikooda Rajappan cited supra.

Regulation 26 is extracted below:

26 Addition to qualifying service in special circumstances:

An employee shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of pension), the actual period not exceeding one fourth of the length of his service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded the upper age limit specified by the Bank for direct recruitment or a period of five years, whichever is less, if the service or post to which the employee is appointed is one.

(a) For which post-graduate research or specialist qualification or experience in scientific, technological or professional fields, is essential; and

(b) to which candidates of age exceeding the upper age limit specified for direct recruitment are normally recruited;

(c) for which the candidate was given age relaxation over and above the maximum age limit fixed by the Bank on account of his possessing higher qualification or experience.

Provided that this concession shall not be admissible to an employee unless his actual qualifying service at the time he quits the service in the Bank is not less than ten years;

Provided further that this concession shall be admissible if the recruitment rules in respect of the said service or post contain specific provision that the service or post is one which carries benefit of this regulation;

Provided also that the recruitment rules in respect of any service or post which carries the benefit of this regulation shall be made with the approval of the Central Government.

There are three provisos appended to Regulation 26. In case, those provisos are taken as different in all respects, the respondents would qualify for counting their earlier service. The Writ Court earlier interpreted the said Regulation and observed that sub-clause (a) and (b) of the main provision would go together and sub-clause (c) would stand separate. The learned Single Judge, in the cited case, observed that there is some defect in the drafting of the Regulation and as such, it should be given a workable interpretation. The learned Single Judge held that sub-clause (a) and (b) forms one category and sub-clause (c) forms separate category. While deciding the issue raised by the respondents, the learned Single Judge heavily relied on the interpretation given by the Writ Court earlier in P.Thirikooda Rajappan cited supra.

The question, therefore, is as to whether the last proviso would form a separate category or as to whether all the provisos should be read together. The last proviso contains a clear indication that it is part of the two other provisos appended to sub-clause (c) of Regulation 26 . This is evident by the phraseology used, viz., provided also . The word also would clearly indicate that the third proviso is part of the two earlier provisos and as such, it has to be read together. We are, therefore, not in a position to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that sub-clause (a) and (b) forms one category and sub-clause (c) forms separate category. In case, it is held that sub-clause (c) is part of other two provisos, the respondents are not eligible to count the earlier service for fixing the total service.

The Regulations were framed and notified in 1995. The Regulations would apply to an employee who retired or died while in service on or after 1 November 1993. The Regulations were made by exercising the power under Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The Government have not approved the pension regulations earlier and as such, the respondents failed to satisfy the last proviso to Regulation 26. In fact, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Government have made it very clear by its communication dated 06.08.1996 that none of the existing employees would be eligible to count their earlier service in view of the last proviso to Regulation 26. In short, the Regulations would apply only to those who retired or died subsequent to 01.11.1993. The respondents have not fulfilled the essential conditions appended to Regulation 26 and as such, they are not eligible for counting their earlier service.

The learned Single Judge was, therefore, not correct in his finding that the respondents have made out a case for counting their past service for payment of full pension. We are, therefore, inclined to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the same is, accordingly, set aside.

In the result, the writ appeals are allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.