Eventually, the respondent vide Instruction Circular number 7331 dated 04.06.2002, lowered down the eligibility criteria from 25 years to 15 years for sanction of proportionate pension under Old Pension Scheme to retirees under the VRS 2000.
Aggrieved by these Orders, the appellant is before us in these appeals.
Accordingly, the appellant claimed pension under the Old Pension Scheme in terms of the draft proposed 1993 Regulations on 30.11.1994.
The appellant further submits that the said Regulation 46 1 creates an arbitrary and unreasonable distinction between the same class of officers of the respondent, merely on account of their date of appointment as employee with the respondent.
Further, the 1995 Regulations, in express terms, have validated the earlier options exercised by the employees in accordance with the draft proposed 1993 Regulations.
In other words, the appellant argued that the said Regulation 46 discriminates the officers appointed on and before 01.07.1979 from those officers who are appointed, recruited or promoted after the said date.
The appellant, aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of the High Court in Writ Petition, filed a Review Application, which was rejected vide Order dated 31.03.2009.
The factual matrix in brief is as under The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in the Nainital Branch of the Allahabad Bank, the respondent herein, on 21.02.1976.
The appellant further made representations before the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent vide letters dated 16.08.2006 and 19.03.2007, which were rejected by the Assistant General Manager vide letter dated 05.04.2007 on the ground that the appellant was number eligible to claim pension under the Old Pension Scheme in terms of the 1979 Regulations.
Subsequently, on 29.09.1995, the respondent formally adopted the 1995 Regulations pursuant to the Tripartite Settlement.
The appellant applied for the voluntary retirement pursuant to the Allahabad Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 hereinafter referred to as the VRS 2000, which was accepted on 12.04.2001 and the appellant stood relieved from the services of the Bank on 30.04.2001.
After retirement, the appellant was offered gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by the respondent vide letter dated 01.09.2001, which the appellant declined to accept.
In other words, the appellant argued that he was the employee of the respondent on the appointed date as per the said Regulation 46 1 .
We have heard Shri Sudhir Kumar Consul, the appellant, who has appeared in person, and Shri Yashraj Singh Deora, learned companynsel for the respondent Bank.
The 1995 Regulations superseded the draft proposed 1993 Regulations vide Circular No.
Subsequently, on 09.10.2001, the appellant made a request to the companypetent authority for sanction of pension in lieu of gratuity, but his request was rejected by the General Manager Personnel Administration , vide letter dated 13.11.2001 as number maintainable on the ground that an officer employed or appointed after 01.07.1079 is ineligible for pension under the Old Pension Scheme in view of Regulation 46 of the 1979 Regulations.
Shri Yashraj Singh Deora, learned companynsel for respondent, submits that the appellant is number eligible to claim any pension under the Old Pension Scheme in terms of Regulation 46 1 of the 1979 Regulations as the appellant had admittedly become officer after 01.07.1979 on his promotion on 02.05.1983.
Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court of Uttarakhand by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same was partly allowed by the judgment and order dated 25.02.2009, wherein the High Court directed the respondent to pay gratuity to the appellant as per Regulation 46 2 of the 1979 Regulations after adjusting the amount of gratuity already paid to the appellant in terms of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Subsequently, the appellant was promoted to the post of JMG Scale I Officer Grade on 02.05.1983.
The draft proposed 1993 Regulations provided the option to the employees, who were on the rolls of the Bank as on 31.10.1993, to opt for pension as per the Old Pension Scheme plus Contributory Provident Fund hereinafter referred to as the CPF.
4318 dated 16.11.1995 by further extending the benefit under the draft proposed 1993 Regulations to the employees who were on the rolls of Bank as on 29.09.1995 to opt for pension as per the Old Pension Scheme plus CPF.
He further submits that the respondent has wrongly deprived him of his pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme by misinterpreting Regulation 46 1 .
In this backdrop, the appellant alternatively requested the General Manager Personnel Administration vide letter dated 05.03.2002 to accept his option for Pension under the 1995 Regulations and further intimated his provisional acceptance of the said gratuity of 2,36,449/ under protest, which was number replied to by the respondent.
By the impugned order, the Court has rejected the Writ Petition filed by the appellant for granting certain reliefs which would include claim for pensionary benefits under the New Pension Scheme, known as Allahabad Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 hereinafter referred to as, the 1995 Regulations.
The appellant submits that Section 12 2 of the Banking Act duly protects the existing pensionary and other rights of the employee and the introduction of Regulation 46 1 of 1979 Regulations unjustifiably deprives the appellant of his existing pensionary right under the Old Pension Scheme.
The issue involved in the present appeals for our companysideration is Whether the appellant is eligible and entitled for the pensionary benefits under the Allahabad Bank Employees Pension Scheme, 1890 hereinafter referred to as Old Pension Scheme in terms of the Allahabad Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979 hereinafter referred to as the 1979 Regulations.
In view of this, the appellant again requested vide letter dated 06.08.2002 to the companypetent authority for the grant of pension under the Old Pension Scheme and the same was rejected in terms of Regulation 46 of the 1979 Regulations.
The services of the appellant, after promotion, were governed by the 1979 Regulations.
The appellant submits that he is an officer governed by the 1979 Regulations and duly eligible for pension under the existing Old Pension Scheme in terms of the Regulation 46 1 of the 1979 Regulations.
Pursuant to the Tripartite Memorandum of Settlement hereinafter referred to as the Tripartite Settlement, among the management, workers and officers of the various banks dated 29.10.1993, the respondent formulated a draft proposed Allahabad Bank Employees Pension Regulation 1993 hereinafter referred to as the draft proposed 1993 Regulations vide Instruction Circular number 3904 dated 06.09.1994.
In arguendo, the appellant challenged the vires of Regulation 46 of 1979 Regulations, as being beyond the Scope of Section 12 2 of the Banking Companies Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking Act, 1970 hereinafter referred to as the Banking Act and in violation of the guarantee of equality before law and equal protection of laws enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Regulation 46 of 1979 Regulations provides retirees an option of gratuity or pension in lieu thereof, and further, the pension benefits for the retirees opting for pension are available under the Old Pension Scheme.
L. Dattu, J. Leave granted.
These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2009 of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Writ Petition No.
The appellant companytends that he is entitled to claim the benefit of pension under the existing Old Pension Scheme in addition to CPF in view of exercise of his option in terms of the draft proposed 1993 Regulations.
69 of 2007.
