M R KULKARNI Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners before this Court are the ex-employees of respondent bank. They have resigned from the services of respondent No. 1 between February 28, 1987 and August 1, 1982. They have put in services ranging from 16 to 30 years and at the time of resignation were aged between 40 years and 59 years. It is the case of the petitioners that they had to resign because the voluntary retirement scheme was not introduced by the respondent No. 1 Bank till June 1, 1991 though in several other nationalised Banks it was introduced between 1986-87. It is contended that though the voluntary retirement scheme was effective from June 1, 1991, the petitioner No. 13 was not aware of its introduction as no wide and adequate publicity was given to the said scheme. He resigned as on August 1, 1992 and at the relevant time had put in 30 years of service. The officers of respondent No. 1 even though were duty bound to bring it to his notice, did not do so. In the other banks, where the scheme was introduced the employees of those banks had been given certain monetary benefits which have been denied to the petitioner and other similarly situated employees of respondent No. 1 Bank. It is set out that this is discriminatory and illegal and violative of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is pointed out that the 1st respondent has framed the Bank of Maharashtra Officers' service Regulations, 1979 which came into force on July 1, 1979. Regulation 19 provides that age of retirement of an officer employee shall be determined by the Board in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time. It is then pointed out that after framing the said regulations, Nationalised banks including the respondent No. 1 was advised to frame the voluntary retirement scheme for officer employees to permit officers desirous of resigning due to personal or family problems or ill health or otherwise to voluntarily retire prior to the age of superannuation. Accordingly such schemes were framed by which the officers were permitted to retire voluntarily instead of resigning under Regulation 20 (2 ). Reference is made to schemes framed by some other nationalised banks. The 1st respondent, it is contended, deliberately ignored the advice of the 2nd respondent and delayed framing of such voluntary retirement scheme till June 1, 1991 thereby leaving no other exit route to its officer employees desiring to leave prior to such superannuation except by resignation. It is also set out that the 1st respondent had framed Bank of Maharashtra Employees' Provident Fund rules much prior to its establishment as a nationalised bank on July 19, 1969 as also rules for payment of gratuity. Adverting to these provisions the petitioners contend that they did not complain or agitate on the 1st respondent framing voluntary retirement scheme, inasmuch as the officers desirous of leaving the service after completing 10 years service were eligible to receive provident fund and gratuity without deduction and, therefore, it did not make much of a difference to the petitioners in resigning under Regulation 20 (2 ). However, on introduction of Bank of maharashtra (Employees') Pension regulations, 1995, hereafter referred to as pension Regulations, the petitioners contend that they found to their dismay that those employees who voluntarily retired after putting in 20 years service in the Bank were eligible to receive pension by refunding the bank's contribution to the provident fund and interest thereon, whereas those who resigned after putting in 20 years service are not eligible for pension. The petitioners contend that they have filed the petition praying that the petitioners who are resignees be treated as retired who have voluntarily retired and, therefore, eligible for pensionary benefits, under the Bank of maharashtra (Employees') Pension regulations, 1995. As the 1st respondent refused to grant the reliefs they are constrained to file petition.

(2.) THE petitioners then contend that various types of regulations including Pension regulations were prepared by the 2nd respondent, discussed with all Nationalised banks, Reserve Bank of India and were approved by the Finance Minister of the 3rd respondent and then adopted by the Boards of directors of the respective Nationalised Banks and again approved by the 3rd respondent. Moreover, guidelines on policy matters were issued by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the banks from time to time. On framing the regulations the proper implementation of the various regulations such as Promotion policy, transfer policy, appointment of Competent authorities, Voluntary Retirement etc. was left to be decided by the Board of each bank. In the matter of framing policy for voluntary retirement is concerned, the respective Board of Directors of various Nationalised Banks did not act expeditiously and with harmony with one another and took their own time to make voluntary retirement scheme for their employees. Different banks introduced voluntary retirement schemes between different dates and because of this disparity of action, the employees of certain banks like the petitioners have been denied the benefits of pension even though the same would be available to the employees of the other nationalised banks, merely because the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 1 Bank did not act expeditiously and did not confer the identical/same/similar benefits on the employees of the respondent No. 1 Bank. This, it is contended, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of india. Reference is then made to the other banks which have introduced the voluntary retirement scheme much earlier. It is contended that the respondent No. 1 made the provisions for voluntary retirement of its employees for the first time with effect from June 1, 1991 by its circular No. AXI/st/77/91 dated July 10, 1991 and there was no provision for voluntary retirement prior to June 1, 1991. It is pointed out that thus the employees of Bank of India and Canara Bank had an option from 1986 itself to voluntarily retire, if they so desired. The officers of the respondent No. 1 though similarly situated had no option from 1986 to june 1, 1991 to voluntarily retire and were constrained to resign from service in case they did not want to continue in service till they attained the age of superannuation. It is contended that the employees of all the nationalised banks under the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970 constitute one homogeneous class and are expected to be treated equally by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The respondents are duty bound to treat all the employees of all the nationalised banks equally and also to see that public sector banks like the respondent No. 1 and other nationalised banks do not discriminate against their employees by further dividing the entire homogeneous class of all employees of all the nationalised banks into further classes merely on the basis that the employees in question were employed by one nationalised bank or by another. It is also contended that the petitioners and other similarly situated employees of the 1st respondent bank are doing identical work as was being done by their counterparts in other nationalised banks like Canara Bank and Bank of India. The qualification and responsibilities were the same and even the pay scales and other benefits are then adverted to in order to point out that they are similar. It is once again reiterated that because of this they constitute one homogeneous class and this class cannot be further arbitrarily divided into further sub classes like resignees and voluntary retirees, therefore, it is set out that the petitioners who are resignees should be treated as employees or voluntarily retired employees who have resigned. Reference is then made to the circular of July 10, 1991 by which an officer could take voluntary retirement. The scheme, it is pointed out, suffers from ambiguity and non-application of mind and exhibits lethargy and anti-employee attitude in not falling in line with what the other nationalised banks had done. Canara Bank, it is pointed out, treated the officers who had completed the age of 50 years or put in 20 years of service as eligible for voluntary retirement. Reference is then made to the provisions of the Officers regulations. It is then contended that regulation 29 (1) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 which enables the employees of the 1st respondent on completing 20 years of qualifying service to avail of pension on voluntary retirement. Considering the regulations of Canara Bank and the voluntary retirement scheme of the 1st respondent which treats only those officers who have completed age of 55 years and chose to retire on (sic) or after June 1, 1991 as voluntary retirees, be quashed and deleted as the said restrictions are not only discriminatory and unreasonable but are by implication, amended by the provisions of Regulation 29 (1) of the Bank of Maharashtra employees' Pension Regulations, 1995. Reference then is made to a judgment in Writ petition No. 620 of 1996 where a view has been taken that all officers who voluntarily retired on or after January 1, 1986 after putting in qualifying service of 20 years are entitled to receive pension from November 1, 1993. It is also pointed out that the High Court of karnataka has also taken similar view and in the opinion of the petitioners Regulation 29 has to be interpreted as not to infringe any fundamental right as the object behind regulation 29 is to make voluntary retirees eligible for pension on par with retirees who superannuate and considering that the opening words of Regulation 29 (1) which reads "on or after the 1st day of November, 1993" will have to be treated as applicable to the date from which pension becomes payable to all other retirees, rather than applying these words to date of voluntary retirement so as to exclude large number of voluntary retirees who retired prior to November 1, 1993 and thereby creating arbitrarily an unreasonable classification amongst a homogeneous class of retirees. It is contended that there is no rational behind granting pension only to voluntary retirees and denying pension to resignees even if they are ready and willing to refund the bank's contribution to the provident fund and interest thereon. The distinction between officers who have resigned and officers who have voluntarily retired is thus irrational, arbitrary and discriminatory and cannot be allowed to continue so as to cause grave injustice to the petitioners and other similarly placed resignees.

(3.) THE petitioners further contend that negotiations were going on since 1990 between managements of Scheduled Banks represented by Indian Banks Association, respondent No. 2 herein and Unions, Associations and federations of Bank workmen and officers about the demand for pension being introduced as a benefit to retired bank employees. A settlement came to be signed on October 23, 1993 between the respondent No. 2 representing 58 signatory banks and union/associations representing lakhs of bank employees whereby it was agreed to pay from november 1, 1993 pension to bank employees who retired on or after January 1, 1986 on condition that such bank retirees exercise option to take pension in lieu of and by refunding bank's contribution to the contributory Provident Fund and interest thereon at 6% from the date of receipt of provident Fund amount by bank retirees who retired prior to November 1, 1993 till the date of refund. It is averred that on coming to know of the settlement some of the petitioners and other officers addressed a letter on December 13, 1993 to the Chairman and Managing director of the 1st respondent Bank requesting that the concerned department of the 1st respondent should be instructed to look into their claim for possession. In the meantime the indian Banks Association published a notice in times of India dated March 18, 1994 about introduction of pension scheme for bank employees who retired on or after January 1, 1986 and advising such retirees to obtain formats of the option letter from where they had retired. Reference is then made to the draft scheme which was circulated and that has been adverted to. It is pointed out that some of the petitioners called on the respondents to treat their resignation as voluntary retirement and pay them pension, so also the petitioner No. 2 had applied for pension that his resignation be treated as voluntary retirement.