Bombay High Court Allows Pension Option to Voluntary Retiree in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Case — Regulation 18 of Pension Regulations Applies for Eligibility, Not Just Calculation. The court held that the bank's communication denying pension eligibility under Regulation 18 was erroneous and directed fresh consideration of the petitioner's pension option.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Vandana w/o Eknath Bhondwe, a retired employee of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (now State Bank of India), filed a writ petition challenging the bank's communication dated 11-8-2016 which stated that Regulation 18 of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 applies only for pension calculation and not for eligibility, and that she was not entitled to pension as she had not completed 15 years of service under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SBBJVRS). The petitioner joined the bank on 29-4-1986 after her husband's death in 1985 and was confirmed on 11-1-1986. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced with effect from 31-1-2001, with eligibility requiring 15 years of service or completion of 40 years of age as on 31-1-2001. The petitioner, having completed 40 years of age, applied for voluntary retirement on 31-3-2001 and opted for pension, but was refunded only the employees' contribution towards Provident Fund. She later sought a second option for pension, which was rejected by the impugned communication. The court framed the issue of whether Regulation 18 applies only for calculation or also for eligibility. The petitioner argued that Regulation 18 should be read harmoniously with the scheme's eligibility clause, while the bank contended that the scheme required 15 years of service for pension eligibility. The court analyzed the scheme and regulations, noting that the scheme allowed employees with 40 years of age to opt for voluntary retirement and pension, and that Regulation 18 provides for pension calculation but does not exclude eligibility. The court held that the bank's interpretation was erroneous and that the petitioner was entitled to have her pension option considered afresh. The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned communication, and directed the bank to decide the petitioner's representation within two months.

Headnote

A) Pension Law - Eligibility for Pension - Regulation 18 of Pension Regulations - The court considered whether Regulation 18 of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 applies only for pension calculation or also for pension eligibility. The petitioner, who had completed 40 years of age but not 15 years of service, opted for voluntary retirement under SBBJVRS and was initially denied pension. The court held that Regulation 18 is not limited to calculation but also governs eligibility, and the scheme's eligibility clause must be read harmoniously with the Pension Regulations. The court directed the bank to consider the petitioner's request for pension option afresh. (Paras 1-10)

B) Pension Law - Voluntary Retirement Scheme - Second Option for Pension - The court examined whether the petitioner, who had opted for pension at the time of voluntary retirement but was refunded only PF contribution, could exercise a second option for pension. The court held that since the scheme permitted opting for pension and the bank had not properly considered the option, the petitioner was entitled to a fresh consideration. The court set aside the communication dated 11-8-2016 and directed the bank to decide the petitioner's representation within two months. (Paras 2-12)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether Regulation 18 of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 applies only for pension calculation or also for pension eligibility, and whether the petitioner is entitled to a second option for pension under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 11-8-2016 is quashed and set aside. The respondent-bank is directed to consider the petitioner's representation for pension option afresh and decide it within two months from the date of the order.

Law Points

  • Regulation 18 of Pension Regulations applies for eligibility
  • not just calculation
  • Voluntary Retirement Scheme eligibility clause must be read harmoniously with Pension Regulations
  • Pension option can be exercised after retirement if scheme permits
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (09) 99

WRIT PETITION NO.2348 OF 2017

2018-09-21

R.K. Deshpande, Arun D. Upadhye

Shri Yash Maheshwari for Petitioner, Shri S.N. Kumar for Respondent No.1

Smt. Vandana w/o Eknath Bhondwe

State Bank of India (Formerly State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur) and The Chief Manager, Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity Department, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging communication denying pension eligibility under Regulation 18 of Pension Regulations.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of communication dated 11-8-2016 and direction to consider her for pension under Regulation 18.

Filing Reason

Bank denied pension eligibility stating Regulation 18 applies only for calculation and petitioner did not complete 15 years of service.

Previous Decisions

Petitioner was refunded only PF contribution upon voluntary retirement; subsequent request for pension option was rejected by impugned communication.

Issues

Whether Regulation 18 of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 applies only for pension calculation or also for pension eligibility? Whether the petitioner is entitled to a second option for pension under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that Regulation 18 should be read harmoniously with the scheme's eligibility clause and that she is entitled to pension as she completed 40 years of age. Respondent argued that the scheme requires 15 years of service for pension eligibility and Regulation 18 is only for calculation, not eligibility.

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations is not limited to pension calculation but also governs pension eligibility. The eligibility clause in the Voluntary Retirement Scheme must be read harmoniously with the Pension Regulations, and an employee who meets the age criterion under the scheme is entitled to have her pension option considered.

Judgment Excerpts

Regulation 18 of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 does not apply to the petitioner as it is only for the purpose of pension calculation for eligible employees to get pension and not for pension eligibility. The petitioner having completed 40 years of age, submitted her application on 31-3-2001 for voluntary retirement under the said Scheme and had opted for the pension benefit.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed writ petition in 2017 challenging communication dated 11-8-2016. Rule was issued and heard finally by consent. Judgment reserved on 14-6-2018 and pronounced on 21-9-2018.

Acts & Sections

  • State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995: Regulation 18
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Pension Option to Voluntary Retiree in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Case — Regulation 18 of Pension Regulations Applies for Eligibility, Not Just Calculation. The court held that the bank's communication denying pension e...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes High Court Order Legalizing Unauthorized Occupation of Gram Panchayat Land Reserved for School and Playground. Unauthorized encroachment on land earmarked for public educational purposes cannot be regularized under the Punjab Vi...