ANTONY Vs. U O I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were employees of the Chaldean Syrian Bank Ltd., hereinafter "Chaldean", for short, which then was carrying on certain activities referable to banking or Travancore Chitties Act or the Cochin' Kuries Regulation. In terms of Section 38 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, by Ext.Pl, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs) accorded sanction to the State Bank of Travancore, hereinafter, "Bank" for short, for acquisition of the business including assets and liabilities of Chaldean on the terms and conditions set out in Ext.P2. Pursuant to that, the petitioners entered into service of the Bank, having regard to the provisions contained in Clause 16 of Ext.P2 Scheme. With the passage of time, the State Bank of India issued the State Bank of Travancore (Employees') Pension Regulations 1995, hereinafter, the "Pension Regulations", for short, in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-section 1 and Clause '0' of Sub-section 2 of Section 63 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, which, in terms of the law, is to be explicitly followed by the Bank. The petitioners, being in the service of the Bank, exercised the necessary option in terms of Regulation 3 of the Pension Regulations. It is also their contention that they had refunded to the Bank, its contribution towards Provident Fund with 6% interest in terms of Regulation 3. It is their further contention that they had also refunded to the Bank, the Provident Fund contribution made by the Chaldean, as the employer. On the basis of the aforesaid factual premise, petitioners contend that the legal effect of their entry and continuity in the service of the Bank entitles them to take along with and claim the previous service in the Chaldean for the purpose of determining the length of the qualifying service for fixation of the pension payable to them under the Pension Regulations.

(2.) Per contra, the Bank denies the claim of the petitioners for tagging along with service rendered by them with the Chaldean for the purpose of counting the qualifying service to determination of pension under the Pension Regulations.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued, firstly, that the determination of the qualifying service of an employee of the erstwhile Chaldean, for the purpose of pension as per the Pension Regulations, has to be in terms of Regulation 20 of the Pension Regulations. It is further contended that Clause 16(a) of Ext.P2 does not, in any manner, disentitle the petitioners from tagging along their service in Chaldean as contended by them.