SHAPOOR M MEHTA Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) The Petitioner is an eighty seven year old senior citizen. On 30 May 1986 he retired from the Allahabad Bank, the First Respondent, as a Special Assistant after thirtynine years of service. The Petitioner, it is undisputed, belongs to the category of award staff. In the Allahabad Bank as it was prior to nationalisation, there was a pension scheme, governed by Pension Rules which stipulated that special assistants, clerks (including typists) and cash clerks would be entitled to pension at the rate of 35% of the full monthly basic pay drawn during the twelve months immediately preceding the date of retirement with a minimum pension of Rs.50/per month. The Petitioner continued to receive pension under the Pension Rules even after the nationalisation of the bank.

(3.) The Retired Employees Association of the ' bank had moved the High Court of Allahabad in assertion of the statutory right of the retired employees to receive gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The High Court held that the retired employees of the bank were entitled to the benefit of gratuity under the Act. The judgment of the High Court was carried in appeal to the Supreme Court. On 15 December 2009, in Allahabad Bank v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association, 2010 2 SCC 44the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the bank. The Supreme Court held that the payment of gratuity under the Act was a statutory right unless an exemption was granted by the appropriate government under the Act. The Supreme Court noted that pensionary benefits or retirement benefits, whether governed by a scheme or rules, constitute a package and pensionary benefits may include the payment of pension as well as gratuity. Upon the dismissal of the appeal filed by the bank, a circular was issued on 30 October 2010 stating that it had been decided to discontinue the scheme for payment of pension in lieu of gratuity pending amendment to the Officers Service Regulations. The Petitioner was in receipt of a princely sum of Rs.5,660/per month towards pension which came to be stopped with effect from 1 October 2010. Aggrieved, the Petitioner is before this Court in proceedings under Article 226.