BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. GOVIND PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench dt. 10.1.2014 by which the writ petition filed by the respondent -writ petitioner Govind Purohit has been allowed. Facts of the case in brief are that the respondent -Govind Purohit applied for appointment on the post of Industrial Relation Officer (IRO) pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Banking Service Recruitment Board (for short -BSRB) in the year 1982. He was issued a letter of appointment on 2.5.1983 on the said post with instruction to report by 1.8.1983. According to stipulation contained in para 5 of the appointment order, his services on confirmation were to be governed by the rules in vogue or framed from time to time for the services of the officers of the Bank. Recruitment in the public sector banks used to be made by BSRB prior to the year 2001 -02. The Government of India advised the banks to frame their individual recruitment policies. The Bank of India adopted the recruitment policy on 30.5.2003, wherein maximum age prescribed for the General Banking Officers as well as Specialist Officers is 30 years. Para 7.2(i)(B) of the aforesaid policy provided that the maximum age limit in relation to specialist post was determined on the basis of nature and other specifications thereof. Indisputably, there was no pension policy in vogue when the respondent joined the services of the appellant -Bank in 1983. The Indian Association of Bank framed the Regulations for giving pensionary benefits to its employees with due approval from the Central Government. Such pension regulations were either framed or adopted by different banks. The Bank of India in exercise of its powers under clause (f) of sub -sec. (2) of Sec. 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 also framed the Pension Regulation for its employees vide notification dt. 29.9.1995 by the name of Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. It is not in dispute that the respondent was in service at the time the said Pension Regulations were enforced. He being eligible accordingly gave his option for availing the pensionary benefits.

(2.) THE respondent on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service of the Bank on 30.09.2005. The Bank counting his length of service to be 22 years granted him pensionary benefits. The respondent immediately thereafter submitted a representation to the Bank on 10.10.2005 to the effect that since he was given appointment as a Specialist Officer, hence as per Regulation No. 26, he was entitled to the benefit of five years of additional service for the purpose of computation of his pension on superannuation. Thus, length of his service for the purpose of computation of pension on superannuation should be taken as 27 years instead of 22 years. His representation was forwarded by the Bank to the Indian Bank Association as well as Finance Ministry for their advice. When no response was received, the respondent filed an application under Right to Information Act on 7.5.2007. Not being satisfied with the reply received, he filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority of the Bank, which by it reply dt. 8.9.2008 informed the respondent that since he did not fulfill the conditions mentioned in Pension Regulation No. 26, he was not eligible to add notional qualifying service of five years to his actual service for the purpose of pension on superannuation. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed the writ petition, which has been allowed by the single bench vide impugned judgment.

(3.) SHRI Ajay Shukla, learned counsel would submit that conjoint reading of Regulation 3 and proviso to Regulation 26 makes it clear that concession shall be admissible only if the recruitment rules in respect of said service or post contain specific provision that the service or post is one which carries benefits of Regulation and the service or the post is covered by the Pension Regulations, indisputably, the Regulations of 1995 were not in force at the time of appointment of the respondent and therefore Regulation 26 should not apply to him. Apart from this Regulation 26 has been held applicable to those who continue to be in service of the Bank after the date of its notification i.e. 29.9.1995. Clause -4 of the Regulation 3 makes it applicable to those who joined the service of the Bank on or after the notified date. Clauses 5 to 8 of Regulation 3 make the Regulations applicable to such of the employees who have died during the period mentioned therein. Merely because the respondent was appointed before the commencement of Regulation 1995 and retired after its commencement, does not bring his case within the ambit of Regulation 26. The legislative intent is clear from second proviso to Regulation 26 that the same would apply to only such employees whose recruitment conditions properly and legitimately contain a provision for pension and since the pension has been made applicable from 29.9.1995, the date on which the Regulations aforesaid were notified, the benefit of addition of service of 5 years would not be available to the respondent.