LAWS(MAD)-2012-12-374

A.B.KASTHURIRANGAN Vs. CANARA BANK

Decided On December 14, 2012
A.B.Kasthurirangan Appellant
V/S
CANARA BANK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions at the instance of the former employees of Indian Overseas Bank, Bank of Baroda and Canara Bank, seek the benefits of the revised pension scheme introduced by the concerned banks pursuant to the 8th Bipartite settlement/ Joint Note entered into between the employees Union and the banks through the Indian Banks Association.

(2.) Since the petitioners are having a common case, the facts as found in W.P.No.3198 of 2007 are taken to narrate the background facts. The conspectus of facts :-

(3.) The petitioner joined the service of Indian Overseas bank on 7/11/1955. He was later promoted as Officer in Middle Management Cadre III. The petitioner retired from the service of the Bank on 31/1/1993. Subsequently, the Bank introduced a Pension Scheme in lieu of employees' contribution to the Provident Fund. The petitioner exercised his option and accordingly, he was granted pension in accordance with the Wage settlement/ joint note which were then in force. The petitioner is being paid Dearness Relief on the Salary and pension at the slab rates prevailing at that point of time. While so, the Bank entered into a settlement/Joint note with 8th the employees Union on 2/6/2005. It was described aa 8th Bipartite Agreement/ Joint Note. The said agreement made certain fundamental changes both in the matter of calculation of dearness allowance as well as pension. Dearness Relief was given at 0.18% of the basic pension with effect from 1/5/2005. The petitioner and others who have retired prior to 1/11/2002 were paid as per the 5th 6th and 7th bipartite settlements as applicable to them. For those who have retired between 1/11/2002 and 30/4/2005, pension was revised with effect from 1/5/2005 and Dearness Relief was paid at the rate of 0.18 of the basic pension with effect from 1/5/2005. However, the said benefit was not given to those who have retired prior to 1/11/2002. This is taken as an element of discrimination, which made the petitioner to file this writ petition.