Resignees Are Entitled For Pension

Flash News for Resignees
By Shri P Mohan
To bankpensioner@googlegroups.com
Today at 9:19 AM

Dear Friends,

As per latest report of Sri.R.K.Pathak, Karnataka High Court has dismissed the Review Petition of Vijaya Bank in the Resigness case.

The Background of the case for information:

M/s C.Narasimhappa and 21 employees of the Bank had filed Writ Petitions No. 24158-24160/2011 & 24162-180/2011 before Hon.Karnataka High Court against Vijaya Bank on denial of pension to them.

Consequent upon the settlement dt.27.4.2010,between Bank Unions and IBA on extending 2nd option on pension the above employees had submitted their option letter for pension within the time frame given. However Bank has rejected the applications on the ground that the petitioners who have resigned are not entitled for pension as per Banks circular on 2nd option on pension.

Court observed that the petitioners have put in more than 20 years of qualifying service and merely because the petitioners have resigned from service is not a ground to deny pension.Petitioners are entitle for pension as per Pension Regulation of the Bank and Writ Petitions were allowed,.on 18th April 2012.

Bank has challenged the above verdict, and proceeded with WA No.2956-2977 /2012 in which court observed that petitioners are entitled for benefits of pension scheme where court didn't find no error whatsoever in the impugned order of learned single judge Accordingly WP were dismissed by division bench on 30.7.2012.

Now the review petition filed by the Bank is reported dismissed .

Resignees of Vijay Bank will get Pension - KHC Ordered : Congratulation.

R.K. Pathak
To bankpensioner@googlegroups.com
Oct 25 at 4:28 PM
Dear Members.

Karnataka High Court has dismissed the Review Petition of Vijaya Bank in the Resigness case. Bank is advised to deposit arrears of Pensions of Resignees with court by 22/11/2013.
Have Happy Diwali.
Thanks & Regards
Pathak R K

CIRCULAR NO.80                                                     20.08.2011

TO ALL AFFILIATES/MEMBERS:

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT

RESIGNING FROM SERVICE - OFFICERS’ OF NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., AFTER COMPLETING PENSIONABLE SERVICE, ELIGIBLE FOR PENSION

        We have been pursuing with IBA, the cause of Officers who had resigned from service of Banks after completing more than 20 years of service and by giving three months advance notice, to be made eligible for pensionary benefits in the wake of settlement on 2nd Option on Pension. IBA has not responded positively to our correspondence on the issue. Now the Supreme Court of India in the Civil Apex Case No. 6013 of 2011 in respect of Sri.Sheelkumar Jain Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others, have in unambiguous terms, delivered a landmark judgement in favour of the petitioners and have averred that the Officer who has resigned from the service of the Company after completing 20 years of service and by giving three months notice, is eligible for Pension benefits.

2.     The same analogy applies to officers who have resigned from the service of the Banks after completing pensionable service of 20 years and giving 3 months notice expressing their desire to quit the Bank.

3.     We have addressed a letter to the IBA to consider the cases of Officers who have resigned from the service of different Banks for pensionary benefits.  The text of the letter is annexed.

4.     Further developments will be informed to you.

With greetings,

                                                                            

                                                                            (G.D.NADAF)

GENERAL SECRETARY

No./1452/297/11                                           20th August, 2011

To,

The Chairman,

The Indian Banks’ Association,

World Trade Centre Complex,

Centre 1, 6th Floor, Cuffe Parade,

MUMBAI – 400 005.

Dear Sir,

IMPLEMENTATION OF SECOND OPTION ON PENSION

IN THE WAKE OF 9TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT

DENIAL OF OPTION TO JOIN THE PENSION SCHEME TO OFFICERS

WHO HAVE RETIRED UNDER VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME OR RESIGNED FROM THE SERVICES OF THE BANKS

        We draw your kind attention to our correspondence on the captioned issue, resting with you. We regret to note that, you have not responded to our correspondence positively. In the meanwhile, the Supreme Court of India in the Civil Appeal No.6013 of 2011, pertaining to the case of Sri.Sheelkumar Jain Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., and others has delivered a landmark judgement wherein, the learned judges have averred that:

2.     The officer-employee of the Insurance Company who has put in the qualifying service for Pension and given up his service voluntarily after serving 90 days notice; in accordance with the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is eligible for pensionary benefits.

3.     Clause 22 of the General Insurance Pension Scheme 1995, stated that, resignation of an employee from the service of the Corporation or a Company should entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently should not qualify for pensionary benefits, but did not define the term “Resignation”.

4.     Under Clause 30(1) of the Pension Scheme 1995, an employee who have completed 20 years of qualifying service by giving notice of not less than 90 days in writing to the appointing authority, to retire from service under clause 30(2) of the Pension Scheme 1995. The notice of Voluntary Retirement should require acceptance by the appointing authority. Since “Voluntary Retirement” unlike “Resignation” did not entail forfeiture of past service and instead qualified for pension, an employee to whom clause 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995 applied should not be considered to have “resigned” from service.

5.     In the instant case, appellant had completed 20 years of qualifying service and had given notice of not less than 90 days in writing to the appointing authority of his intention to leave service, and the appointing authority had accepted notice of the appellant and relieved him from service.

6.     Hence, clause 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995 applied to the Appellant even though in his relieving letter to the General Manager of the respondent he had used the word “resign”. Further clauses 22 and 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995 should not be so construed as to deprive of an employee of an Insurance Company, such as the appellant, who had put in the qualifying service for Pension and who had voluntarily given up his service after serving 90 days notice in accordance with Clause 5(1) of the Scheme”.

7.      It is crystal clear that, the Officers who have completed 20 years or more of service, retired from the service of the Bank by giving 3 months notice to the competent authorities concerned and Management accepting such applications submitted by the Officers’ offering to resign from the service of the Banks, should have been treated on par with the officers retiring under the Regular Voluntary Retirement Scheme as per the Bank Employees’ Pension Regulation 1995, Clause No.29. Such Officers should be made eligible for pensionary benefits.

8.      Keeping in view the judgement of the Supreme Court as mentioned Supra, we request you to reconsider giving an option to all the Officers who resigned from the service of the Bank after completing 20 years of service, and qualify for pensionary benefits, should be given an option to join the Pension scheme of the Banks.  As the number of such officers in the entire banking industry is very small, it should not be a problem for Banks to grant an option to these officers to join the pension scheme as per the Joint Note signed by us on 27.04.2010.

9.     Forwarded herein a copy of the Supreme Court Judgement for your kind perusal and suitable action in the matter. We are sure, you will be able to take a positive view on the issue and provide a relief to the affected officers.

Please expedite.

Thanking you,

                                                                  Yours faithfully,

                                                                             SD/-                                                                                                     (G.D.NADAF)

                                                                   GENERAL SECRETARY

-- 
Mohan.V.R.
PLOT 95, FIRST FLOOR,
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STREET,
ALWAR THIRU NAGAR, CHENNAI 600087
Landline 044-24869356 MOB No. 09444625963.

IMPORTANT HIGH COURT/SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS IN THE
MATTER OF PAYMENT OF PENSION TO BANK/GENERAL INSURANCE
EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE RESIGNED FROM THE SERVICE OR RETIRED
VOLUNTARY / COMULSORY
1.In the matter of Sri Sheel Kumar Jain Vs The New India Assurance Company
Ltd. (Case No. 6013 of 2011), Supreme Court of India have in unambiguous terms
delivered a judgement in favour of the petitioners and have averred that the officer who
has resigned from the service of the company after completing 20 years of service and
by giving three months notice, is eligible for pension benefits.
2.In the matter of civil appeal No. 6959 of 1987(SLP © 7639/59) Bank of India Vs
Indu Rajagopalan and others, the apex court has upheld the verdict of Hon’ble High
Court which inter alia reads as under. "All that has happened is in such of the banks
where a scheme for voluntary retirement was available, certain employees retired under
that scheme. Now, a comprehensive pension scheme has been framed which came into
force w.e.f.1-11-1993 and applicable uniformly to all Bank employees which provides
for voluntary retirement as well. The applicability of these Rules to those employees
who have voluntarily retired w.e.f. 1-1-1986 to 31.10.1993 is raised in these matters. It
is not possible for Shri V.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel who appeared for the
appellants to point out that there is any significant financial or other burden or
difference so far as those who had voluntarily retired and those who had ordinarily
retired. In that event where there is no distinction, the authorities having sought to make
a distinction and not applied the regulations framed subsequent to their retirement, the
High Court has given appropriate directions. We also notice that the number of
employees who have retired in this manner is also very small. (Emphasis added)
Therefore, we think no interference is called for in these appeals. The appeals are,
therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs."
3.In the matter of civil appeal No. 307 0f 1987 dated 27-07-1990, the apex court has
clearly stated that there is no difference between retirement and resignation. The verdict
inter alia reads as under. "In the present case the employees request contained in the
letter of resignation was accepted by the employer and that brought an end to the
contract of service. The meaning of term 'resign' as found in the Shorter Oxford
Dictionary includes 'retirement'. Therefore, when an employee voluntarily tenders his
resignation it is an act by which he voluntarily gives up his job. We are, therefore, of
the opinion that such a situation would be covered by the expression 'voluntary
retirement' with in the meaning of Clause (i) of Sec.2(s) of the State Act."
4.In the matter of the appeal of Satya Srinath of Syndicate Bank in Case No. appeal
(civil) 6721 of 2004 in relation to compulsory retirement, the apex court has upheld
the appeal of Satya Srinath of Syndicate Bank in case No. Appeal (civil) 6721 of 2004.
The judgment inter alia reads as under. "This appeal is directed against the order dated
7th April, 2003 passed by the Division of the Karnataka High Court whereby the
Division Bench has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the writ
petition No. 25322 of 1999, quashed the impugned order dated 26th June, 1999 and
directed the management of the Appellant Bank to pay the pension to the respondent
from 1.11.1993”.
I think the decisions may be useful where in petions have been filed by the individuals 
/associations for pension option to such category of persons.
M.C.Agrawal
mca...@rediffmail.com