UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. PRASANTA KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Learned Counsel appearing for the United Bank of India, (the Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2729/2006) and the Punjab National Bank (the Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4677/2010), submitted that under the (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, (which are identical for the two banks) in case of compulsory retirement, as a measure of punishment, the concerned employee would be entitled to pension only if he was awarded the punishment after November 1, 1993. But an employee who was given the punishment of compulsory retirement prior to that date will not be entitled to pension even though it might have taken place after January 1, 1986, the cut off date for employees retiring from the bank's service on superannuation or in other ways than by way of punishment. Mr. Deora, painstakingly built up the argument referring to various provisions of the Pension Regulations, including Regulation 2(k), 2(1), 2 (x), 2(y), Regulation 3 and Regulations 29 to 33. He also tried to support his contention on the basis of a number of decisions of this Court ((i) Krishan Kumar v. Union of India, 1990 4 SCC 207; (ii) All India Reserve Bank of India Retired Officers Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Another, 1992 AIR(SC) 767; (iii) State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Ratan Behari Dey and Ors., 1993 4 SCC 62; (iv) Union of India v. P.N. Menon and Ors., 1994 4 SCC 68(v) v. Kasturi v. M.D., State Bank of India, Bombay and Another, 1998 8 SCC 30 (vi) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy and Ors., 1999 AIR(SC) 1768.

(2.) In the facts of the case, however, we see no reason to decide the issue raised by Mr. Deora. The facts and circumstances that dissuade us from examining the question raised by Mr. Deora on merits are these: the concerned employee - Respondent No. I in Civil Appeal No. 2729/2006, was initially dismissed from service on certain charges. His punishment was, however, modified by the departmental reviewing authority from dismissal to compulsory retirement. The matter of his removal from service came to the Calcutta High Court in Company No. 9045(W)/1987 which was disposed of by a single Judge of the court by order dated February 6, 1990. From that order it appears that the High Court did not formally interfere with the punishment of compulsory retirement and directed that the Respondent should be treated as compulsorily retired from service with effect from September 30, 1988. But in regard lo payment of terminal dues, it brought the case of the Respondent completely at par with retirement with no element of punishment. The order of High Court has since attained finality.

(3.) It is further to be noted that before the 1995 Regulations were notified by publication in the official gazette, as required in terms of Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, a set of draft Regulations were framed in 1993. The draft Regulations, though not notified, were adopted by the United Bank under the heading United Bank of India Employees' (Pension) Regulations, 1993. In the draft Regulations, 1993, "retirement" was defined under Regulation 2(j) and Clause (iv) provided as follows: