STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. S.K. CHAKRABARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by appellant-State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur against the order of the learned Single Judge dtd. 30/6/2004, whereby the writ petition of the respondent was allowed with direction to the appellant to pay to him pension in accordance with law by adjusting contribution towards provident fund and other retiral benefits, if any, paid to him. The respondent-S.K. Chakrabarti was an officer in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, which later merged with the State Bank of India. He was sent on deputation as a Faculty Member in the State Bank Staff College, Hyderabad vide order dtd. 2/6/1993 for a period of 2 years. He tendered his resignation from service vide letter dtd. 27/6/1994. The appellant-bank accepted his letter of resignation vide order dtd. 26/9/1994. The respondent filed writ petition before this Court in the year 2000 for grant of pensionary benefits challenging Regulation 22 of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short-the Regulations of 1995). As per Regulation No.1(b) of the Regulations, the Regulations were deemed to have come into force with effect from 29/9/1995. The notified date of the Regulation has been defined in Regulation 2(r) of the Regulations to mean the date on which these Regulations are published in the official gazette. The Regulations were published in the Official Gazette on 23/3/1996. The SBBJ introduced Pension Scheme vide Pension Regulations of 1995 as sequel to the settlement arrived at between the Indian Banks Association and the All India Bank Employees Association, apart from the other Bank Employees Unions such as the NCBE and the INBEF. The said agreement was signed between the parties on 29/9/1993, which ultimately culminated into the SBBJ (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short-'the Regulations of 1995'), which was introduced in the Bank with effect from 1/11/1993.

(2.) According to the appellant, the pension scheme was circulated by Circular No.PER/13/94-95 dtd. 10/6/1994 to the Controlling Officers/Branch Managers/Chief Managers/Assistant General Managers and Departmental Heads of the Bank. A request was made in the circular itself to all the authorities referred to above that the contents of the circular must be given wide circulation among the staff members posted under their control in order to ensure that it has been properly published and brought to the knowledge of the Supervising and Award Staff Members. The directions to obtain signatures from the concerned employees find place in para 10 of the Circular. The scheme had to come into effect from 1/11/1993. In para 6 of the Circular, it was clearly stated that the option letter should be submitted to the respective Department Heads/Branch Managers under whom the employees concerned is working and the employees had to exercise their option before September 30, 1994. Subsequently, this date was extended to 30/11/1994 and then further extended upto 120 days from the notified date i.e. the date of publication of the Pension Regulation in the Official Gazette i.e. 23/3/1996. In other words, the date of exercising the option was extended further upto 21/7/1996. According to para no.4 of the Circular, even the retired employees of the Bank were also entitled to get benefit of pension scheme.

(3.) Ms. Anita Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in allowing the writ petition merely on the ground that the respondent was working on deputation as the Faculty Member in the State Bank Staff College, Hyderabad since 2/6/1993 and he was not aware of the bringing out of the new pension scheme. The scheme relating to pension was not sent to the said college at Hyderabad and, therefore, the respondent did not come to know about it. The appellant-bank did not comply the condition incorporated in the Circular as it was not properly circulated to all the employees of the bank especially those who were on deputation outside at that time. The learned Single Judge also took the view that since the respondent-writ petitioner completed more than twenty years of qualifying service as on 1/11/1993, pension was admissible to him in terms of Regulation 29 of the Regulations of 1995. Such an approach was wholly erroneous. The impugned judgement be therefore set aside.