Delhi High Court
Swaran Dutt Sharma vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce & Ors on 13 August, 2009
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 3643/2002
Swaran Dutt Sharma ..... Petitioner
Through: None.
versus
Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jagat Arora & Rajat Arora
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the
Digest? yes
V.K.JAIN,J (ORAL)
The petitioner joined the service of respondent No. 1,
Oriental Bank of Commerce on 13.10.1986 as a Clerk-cum-Cashier.
On 10th November, 2000 the respondent No. 1 promulgated a
scheme called O.B.C. Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme
2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'Scheme'), which was to remain in
force from 1st December 2000 to 31st December 2000 and was
open to those permanent full time employees who had completed
15 years of service or 40 years of age, in addition to certain other
W.P.(C) 3643/2002 Page 1 of 6
eligible employees. The application of the petitioner dated
14.12.2000 seeking retirement from the service of the Bank was
accepted by the bank with effect from 15.01.2001. Before
retirement, the petitioner No. 1 had opted for the benefit of
pension as per O.B.C. (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995.
Vide circular dated 15.12.2000, the bank amended its (Employees)
Pension Regulation so as to grant pension to those employees who
had completed minimum prescribed period of employment and had
opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme after completing 15 years
of employment. The grievance of the petitioner is that the pension
has not been paid to him despite amendment made in the Pension
Regulations. The petitioner has sought mandamus directing the
respondent to fix and pay the pension to him along with interest @
24% per annum.
2. The respondents have contested the petition. It has been
alleged in the reply that the petitioner was not entitled to pension
in terms of Pension Regulations of the bank as he had not
completed 15 years of service on the date of retirement.
According to the respondents the petitioner had completed only 14
years, 3 months and 2 days of service on 15.1.2002, on the date
when he retired from service.
W.P.(C) 3643/2002 Page 2 of 6
3. A perusal of the Scheme would show that it was open to
those permanent full time employees who had either completed 15
years of service or had reached 40 years of age. Therefore, a
person who had completed 40 years, though had not completed 15
years of service, was eligible to apply for retirement under the
Scheme. Similarly, a person who have completed 15 years of
service, though had not reached 40 years of age, was also eligible
to apply for voluntary retirement under the Scheme.
4. A further perusal of the Scheme shows that the following
benefits were admissible to the employees taking voluntary
retirement under the Scheme:
"AMOUNT OF EX-GRATIA
An employee seeking voluntary retirement under the scheme
will be entitled to the ex-gratia amount mentioned hereunder:-
(a) 60 days salary (pay plus stagnation increments plus
special allowance plus dearness relief) for each
completed year of service.
Or
Salary for the number of months service is left.
Whichever is less.
OTHER BENEFITS:
W.P.(C) 3643/2002 Page 3 of 6
An employee seeking voluntary retirement under the
Scheme will be eligible for the following benefits in addition
to the ex-gratia amount as above:-
(i) Gratuity as per Gratuity Act, 1972 or Gratuity
payable under the Service regulations as the
case may be, as per existing rules.
(ii) Pension (including commuted value of
pension) as per OBC (Employees) Pension
Regulations 1995.
Or
Bank's contribution towards PF, as per
existing Rules.
(iii) Leave encashment as per existing rules
5. Thus, pension was payable to an employee seeking voluntary
retirement under the Scheme only if he was eligible for it under
O.B.C. (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. If an employee
retiring under the Scheme was not eligible to pension under OBC
(Employees) Pension Regulations, he was not to get pension under
the Scheme. That the employee claiming pension had to be
eligible for grant of pension under O.B.C. (Employees) Pension
Regulations is more than evident from a bare perusal of the
Scheme. It is not that the Scheme provided for payment of
pension to every employee opting for retirement under the
W.P.(C) 3643/2002 Page 4 of 6
Scheme irrespective of whether they were eligible for pension
under the Pension Regulations or not.
6. Vide Circular No. Per/57/83/2000 dated 15.12.2000, the
respondent No. 1 notified its employees that Government of India
had approved grant of pension to those employees who had retired
after completing the minimum period of their retirement, under
the Special Schemes created by the banks. The circular notified
that till amendments were effected, in pension regulations, those
employees who had opted for pension after completion of
minimum period of 15 years of employment and had applied under
the Special Scheme for voluntary retirement shall be eligible to
get pension for the said period.
7. It is quite evident from a bare perusal of the above referred
circular that a decision was taken by the Government as well as by
the respondent bank to grant pension to those employees, who had
taken voluntary retirement under the Special Scheme formulated
by the bank for voluntary retirement of its employees, provided
they had completed minimum 15 years of employment with the
bank. The decision to grant pension was not applicable to those
employees who had reached 40 years of age but had not
completed 15 years of employment with the bank. This is
petitioner's own case that he joined the service of the bank of
W.P.(C) 3643/2002 Page 5 of 6
13.10.1986 and retired from its service on 15.1.2001. Therefore,
as per his own version, the petitioner had not completed 15 years
of service when he retired from the service. This is not the case of
the petitioner that under pension regulations applicable to him, he
was entitled to pension even if he had not completed 15 years of
service. Therefore, I find no merit in the contention that the
petitioner was entitled to pension for the period he had rendered
service with the bank.
For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, I find no
merit in the writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed.
V.K. JAIN, J.
August 13, 2009
acm
