Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gurudatt Bhatt vs Chairman Madhyanchal Gramin Bank on 10 May, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 10 th OF MAY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 23614 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
GURUDATT BHATT S/O SHRI SHIVDUTT BHATT, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. ASST.
MANAGER MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK
MANGAWAN REWA VILL. CHOPRA POST OFFICE
BAWAI (JAKHNI) TEH. RUDRAPRAYAG
(UTTARAKHAND)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI LAL RAJ BAHORAN SINGH CHAUHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
CHAIRMAN MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK THR.
PODDAR COLONY OPPOSITE TO HOSTEL OF WOMAN
POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ASHISH SHROTI - ADVOCATE)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner's case is that petitioner was retired from the services of the
respondent-Bank as an officer Grade-I on 14.08.2019. On the date of his
retirement, there was a scheme as was notified by the respondent-Bank vide
notification dated 13.12.2018 (Annexure RJ-5) called Madhyanchal Gramin
Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the
''Regulations of 2018''). There is no dispute that in Regulation 2(k) ''effective
Signature Not Verified
SAN
date'' means the 1st day of April, 2018.
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2023.05.12 17:09:30 IST
2. It is submitted that Clause 3(1)(b) of the Regulations of 2018, reads as
under:-
''3. Application - (1) These Regulations shall apply to any
employee, who -
(a) ......
(b) was in the service of the Bank on or after the 1st day of
September, 1987 who continue to be in the service of the Bank on
or after the notified date and exercise an option in writing within
one hundred and twenty days from the notified date, to become
member of the Fund and cause to transfer the entire contribution
of the Bank along with the interest accrued thereon, to the credit of
the Fund constituted under regulation 4.''
3. It is further submitted that Regulation 4 of the Regulations of 2018 deals
with constitution of the fund.
4. Petitioner's case is that petitioner was sanctioned pension vide order
dated 20.04.2020 (Annexure RJ-4). Along with Dearness Relief, he started
drawing pension w.e.f 15.08.2019 in terms of the stipulations contained in
Annexure RJ-4, which was in consonance of the Madhyanchal Gramin Bank
(Employees') Pension Regulations, 2018.
5. Petitioner was getting pension till September, 2021 when all of a sudden,
respondent-Bank started making recovery despite the fact that they admitted in
their return that petitioner had refunded a sum of Rs.2,96,476/- as is evident
from para 5(b) of the return filed by the respondent-Bank in December, 2021.
6. It is submitted that since petitioner had refunded the contribution of the
EPF, which was given by the employer and which was received by the
employee i.e. the petitioner from the EPF on his superannuation along with
Signature Not Verified
SAN
accrued interest, there was no reason for making any recovery. Therefore,
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2023.05.12 17:09:30 IST
recovery order is sought to be quashed on the ground that recovery of that
amount is being made which was never paid to the petitioner.
7. Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, in his turn,
submits that in fact petitioner was making contribution of Rs.1,800/- per month
towards the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) under the scheme of 1995.
Respondent-Bank was making contribution in two parts, namely, Rs.550/- per
month towards the Provident Fund and Rs.1,250/- per month towards the
Pension fund, which was to be maintained by the Employees Provident Fund
Organization (EPFO) from which pension was to be given to the employees
under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952.
8. It is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated
25.04.2018 in SLP No.39288 upheld the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of
Rajasthan dated 23.08.2012 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.2021/2011 in
SBCWP No.4366/2005.
9. Accordingly, a decision was taken to transfer the funds deposited with
the EPFO towards the pension contribution to the concerned pension authority
of the RRB.
10. Reading from Annexure AR-2 dated 15.02.2021 issued by the
Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Head Office at New Delhi with the
approval of CPFC, Shri Ashish Shroti submits that in the last para of this
document Annexure AR-2 addressed to All Zonal ACCs, it was notified under
the subject - Exclusion of employees of Regional Rural Banks from the purview
of EPF & MP Act, 1952. In the last para of this communication, it is mentioned
Signature Not Verified
SAN
as under:-
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
''However, employees of the RRBs who became eligible for
Date: 2023.05.12 17:09:30 IST
pensionary benefit under EPS, 1995 prior to the date of exclusion
from EPF & MP Act, 1952, will continue to receive such benefits
from EPFO. No transfer of accumulations of such employees
therefore, will be required.''
11. Reading from the aforesaid, it is submitted that since some employees
who are similarly situated like the petitioner, started drawing their pension from
EPFO, therefore, EPFO has not transferred Bank's contribution to the tune of
Rs.1,250/- per month in favour of the RRB, as a result, recovery became
necessary.
12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, few facts needs to be reiterated:-
(a) Date of retirement of the petitioner is 14.08.2019.
(b) Date of notification of the Madhyanchal Gramin Bank (Employees')
Pension Regulation, 2018 is 13.12.2018 as filed by the petitoner along with
additional rejoinder.
(c) As per Regulation 2(k) ''effective date'' is 1st day of April, 2018.
13. Thus, when these facts are taken into consideration and also the fact
that pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner from the funds of the
Bank in terms of the Regulations of 2018 on 20.04.2020, it is crystal clear that
petitioner was not entitled to draw any pension from the EPFO in terms of their
communication dated 15.02.2021.
14. Only those employees who are excluded to became eligible for
pensionary benefit under the EPS, 1995, prior to the date from exclusion of
EPF and MP Act, 1952, which will be 13.12.2018 were to be retained by the
Signature Not Verified
EPFO and, their pension was to be paid from their funds.
SAN
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
15. Admittedly, when petitioner sought voluntary retirement w.e.f
Date: 2023.05.12 17:09:30 IST
14.08.2019, which was sanctioned by the respondent-Bank then, that was
beyond the cut-off date. Therefore, merely because EPFO has not transferred
pension contribution made by the RRB in the name of the petitioner i.e.
Rs.1,250/- per month along with accrued interest thereon, petitioner cannot be
put to any disadvantage, especially, when some others have been given benefit
of pension by EPFO.
16. It is not the respondent's case that petitioner received any pension from
EPFO out of the funds deposited by the Bank towards drawal of his pension in
case the scheme of pension would have continued and Hon'ble Supreme Court
would not have shown indulgence resulting in framing of Regulations of 2018.
17. Thus, when petitioner's case is squarely covered by the Regulations of
2018, he has not drawn any pension from the EPFO and he has no control over
the contribution which was made by the RRB towards the pension aspect of the
contribution of the employer and had control over the EPF aspect which was
paid by the EPFO to the petitioner and which he already refunded in favour of
the respondent-Bank then, recovery cannot be sustained.
18. Thus, impugned action of recovery on the part of the respondent-Bank
is hereby quashed. They are directed to refund the amount already recovered
from the petitioner along with 8% interest per annum thereon within a period of
30 days.
19. In above terms, this writ petition is disposed of.
20. At this moment, it will be necessary to point out that respondent-Bank
will be free to institute appropriate proceedings for recovery of their pension
contribution made with the EPFO on account of the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2023.05.12 17:09:30 IST
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
pp
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL
Date: 2023.05.12 17:09:30 IST
