The Oriental Bank Retired Officers Association (Regd.) vs Union of India and Others

Sabina, J.—Vide this order, above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as controversy involved in both the cases is the same. CWP No. 23102 of 2011 has been filed by Oriental Bank Retired Officers Association whereas, CWP No. 7395 of 2012 has been filed by Narender Paul Rana in his individual, capacity. The grievance of the petitioners is that members of the Union had although, not opted for pension scheme in the year 1995 and had thereafter, sought voluntary retirement but they were not being considered eligible to exercise the option to join the pension scheme as per the joint note dated 27.04.2010 and 23.08.2010 (Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 respectively).

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the members of the Association were working with the Oriental Bank of Commerce in officer cadre. In the year 1995, pension scheme was introduced by the Bank but the aggrieved members of the Association had not opted for the scheme. However, a joint note was agreed by the management of the banks and the Associations of the bank officers on 27.04.2010 (Annexure P-1) whereby a second chance was given to the employees of the Bank to opt for pension scheme. As per Annexure P-2, all those employees who were in service of the Bank prior to 29.09.1995 and had retired after that date and prior to 27.04.2010 could exercise an option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer to become member of the pension fund. The claim of the employees of the bank to allow them to opt in terms of Annexure P-2 was declined on the ground they had sought voluntary retirement prior to the passing of Annexures P-1 and P-2. Learned counsel has further submitted that it appears that due to inadvertence, petitioners had made reference to the word "resignation" in their letters whereas, in fact they had sought voluntary retirement. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Sheelkumar Jain Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others, .

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that in pursuance to the circular dated 13.12.2012 Annexure R-2/1 (CWP No. 23102 of 2011), Naresh Bhatia, S.S. Wason, Ashok Dhingra, Om Parkash Gupta, V.S. Pawar, Narinder Kumar Kanwar and D.K. Bhasin had applied for pension and they were allowed pension by the bank as they were found eligible for the same. So far as the employees who had resigned or had been dismissed/removed/terminated from the service of the Bank were not entitled for pension in terms of Regulation 22(1) of the Oriental Bank of Commerce (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. G.S. Popli, Sudesh Chutani, Chander Mohan and Ravinder Kumar Bhatia and Narender Paul Rana were not eligible for pension as they had not sought voluntary retirement but G.S. Popli, Sudesh Chutani and Narender Paul Rana had resigned from the service of the Bank whereas, Ravinder Kumar Bhatia had been removed from service vide order dated 01.06.2005. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Hon''ble the Apex Court in M.R. Prabhakar and Others Vs. Canara Bank and Others, wherein it was held as under:--

"The learned counsel appearing for the appellants have placed heavy reliance on Sheelkumar Jain and submitted that in the light of that judgment, the decision rendered in Sanwar Mal requires reconsideration. We find it difficult to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

We may point out that in Sheelkumar Jain this Court was dealing with an insurance scheme and not the pension scheme., which is applicable in the banking sector. The provisions of both the scheme and the Regulations are not in pari materia. In Sheelkumar Jain case, while referring to Para 5, this Court came to the conclusion that the same does not make distinction between "resignation" and "voluntary retirement" and it only provides that an employee who wants to leave or discontinue his service amounts, to "resignation" or "voluntary retirement". Whereas, Regulation 20 (2) of the Canara Bank (Officers'') Service Regulations, 1979 applicable to banks, had specifically referred to the words "resignation" unlike para 5 of the Insurance Rules. Further, it is also to be noted that, in that judgment, this Court in para 30 held that the Court will have to construe the statutory provisions in each case to find out whether the termination of service of an employee was a termination by way of resignation or a termination by way of voluntary retirement.

The appellants, when tendered their letters of resignation, were governed by the 1979 Regulations. Regulation 20(2) of the 1979 Regulations dealt with resignation from service and they tendered their resignation in the light of that provision. We are of the view that the appellants have failed to show any preexisting rights in their favour either in the statutory settlement/joint note dated 29.10.1993 or under the 1995 Regulations. The appellants had resigned from service prior to 1-11-1993 and, therefore, were not covered by the statutory settlement, joint note dated 29-10-1993 and the 1995 Regulations. They could not establish any preexisting legal, statutory or fundamental rights in their favour to claim the benefit of the 1995 Regulations. Consequently, the reliance placed by the appellants either on Regulation 29 or Regulation 22 in support of their contentions, cannot be accepted, since they are not covered by the scheme of pension introduced by the banks with effect from 1-11-1993."

Thus, in the present case, the passing of Annexures P-1 and P-2 are not in dispute. Vide Annexure P-1, meetings of the Indian Bank Association representing the Management of Banks and representatives of the Officers Association on salary revision and other issues concerning service conditions of the officers of the Banks were held. Oh different issues, decisions were taken vide Annexure P-1 dated 27.04.2010 and thereafter, bi-partite settlement with Workmen Union and joint note with Officers Association was passed on 23.08.2010 (Annexure P-2).

Clause 1 of Annexure P-2 reads as under:--

"(i) All those workmen/Officers employees who:--

(a) were in the service of the bank prior to 29.09.1995 and continue in the service of the bank on 27.4.2010.

(b) exercise an option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer to become a member of the Pension Fund and

(c) authorize the Trust of the Provident Fund of the Bank to transfer the entire contribution of the Bank alongwith interest accrued thereon to the credit of the Pension Fund and contribute from their arrears on account of their wage revision in terms of the Joint Note/Settlement towards their share in the funding gap an amount @ 2.8 times of the revised pay for the month of November, 2007.

(ii) All those workmen/officer employees who:--

(a) were in the service of the Bank prior to 29.9.1995 and retired after that date and prior to 27.4.2010.

(b) exercise an option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer to become of member of the Pension Fund and

(c) refund within 30 days after expiry of the said period of 60 days, the entire amount of the bank contribution to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon received by them on retirement plus an amount equal to 56% of the bank contribution to Provident Fund with interest received at the time of retirement being 30% contribution towards the initial funding gap in terms of Settlement/joint note dated 27.4.2010."

Thus, a second chance was given to the employees of the bank to exercise option for pension who had earlier not opted for pension scheme. As per Clause 1(ii) reproduced above, the employees who were in service of the bank prior to 29.09.1995 and had retired after that date or prior to 27.4.2010 could exercise an option within 60 days from the date of the offer to become member of the pension fund. As per the reply submitted by the bank, it is evident that Naresh Bhatia, S.S. Wason, Ashok Dhingra, Om Parkash Gupta, V.S. Pawar, Narinder Kumar Kanwar and D.K. Bhasin were allowed the benefit of pension as they were found eligible to apply for the same. Regulation 22 Clause 1 of the Regulations as reproduced in para 4 of the amended written statement filed by the bank reads as under:--

"22. Forfeiture of service.

(1) resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of ah employee from the service of the bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits."

Thus, an employee who resigns from service or is dismissed from service would not be entitled to qualify for pensionary benefits. So far as G.S. Popli, Sudesh Chutani, Chander Mohan and Narender Paul Rana are concerned they had resigned from service and their resignations were duly accepted by the bank. Consequently, they could not be held entitled for pensionary benefits. From Annexure P-3, it is evident that resignation of G.S. Popli was accepted on 25.06.2009. So far as Sudesh Chutani is concerned, his resignation was accepted vide Annexure P-9 dated 09.03.2006. So far as Chander Mohan is concerned, it is evident from Annexure P-10/A (CWP No. 23102 of 2011) that his resignation was accepted by the bank and therefore, his option to join the pension scheme was rejected. So far as Narinder Paul Rana is concerned, it is evident from Annexure P-3 (CWP No. 7395 of 2012) that his resignation was accepted vide letter dated 16.09.2010 by the competent authority.

So far Ravinder Kumar Bhatia is concerned, it is evident from Annexure R-2/2 dated 01.06.2005 that penalty of removal from service was awarded to him in view of departmental proceedings initiated against him.

Thus, the bank has allowed the employees to join the pension scheme who had sought voluntary retirement but the employees who had resigned from service or had been dismissed from service could not be allowed to join pension scheme. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner as the same was duly considered by the Apex Court in M.R. Prabhakar''s case (supra) and was distinguished. In these circumstances, no ground for interference is made out. Both the petitions are dismissed.