Dismissed

M. T. Mani v. the Governor, Reserve Bank of India

Kerala HC4 Apr 2023WP(C)/4680/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, a retired RBI employee sought to quash specific orders and circulars denying claim of pension from his retirement date. The High Court held that since the petitioner voluntarily declined multiple statutory options to join the pension scheme while in service, he cannot demand retrospective benefits. The attempt to claim pension from the date of retirement was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking direction for pension from date of retirement and quashing of circular was dismissed.

M. T. Mani Vs the Governor, Reserve Bank of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(C).No.4680 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 4680 OF 2020

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

M. T. MANI AGED 65 YEARS (RETIRED MANAGER, RBI, KOCHI), FLAT NO.A-1, GALAXY ARCADE, S.R.M. ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH P. O., KOCHI - 682018.

¶9

BY ADVS. I.YOHANNAN MANJU ANTONEY

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE GOVERNOR, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, MUMBAI - 400 001. 2 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, II FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110001.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI NAVANEETH.N.NATH

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2023, THE COURT ON 04.04.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C).No.4680 of 2020

¶15

¶16

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.4680 of 2020

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of April, 2023

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The reliefs sought for in this writ petition are to quash paragraph No.3 of Exhibit P16 order and paragraph No.4 (vi, vii) of Exhibit P16A circular dated 18.09.2020, as also for a direction to the 1^st respondent to grant pension with all benefits to the petitioner.

¶21

The petitioner joined service of the Reserve Bank of India on 14.09.1981 and retired as Manager on 30.11.2014. The conditions of service of staff with the Reserve Bank are governed by the RBI Staff Regulations, 1948 framed under the provisions of the RBI Act, 1934. It is submitted that in the year 1990, Pension Regulations were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 58(2)(j) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Before the regulations came into force, the

¶22

W.P.(C).No.4680 of 2020

¶23

¶24

employees were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF for short) Scheme and Payment of Gratuity Act. Exhibit P2, RBI Pension Regulations, 1990 was made applicable to employees who joined the bank after 01.11.1990 as well as the employees who were in service as on the said date, except those employees, who exercise an optional right not to be governed by the Regulations. The Scheme also permitted employees who were in service as on 01.01.1986 but who retired before 31.10.1990 to join the Pension Scheme on refund of CPF amount with interest. It is submitted that since various clauses of the scheme were not beneficial to the employees, the scheme was not acceptable and many of the employees did not join the Scheme. Three options were given, that is, in the years 1990, 1992, 1995 and 2000. It is stated that the petitioner was a CPF optee and because of the ambiguities and the defects in the scheme, he did not join the pension scheme. It is stated that an amendment was carried out in the Pension Scheme in 2012, as evidenced by Exhibit P3. But the petitioner, who was in service at the relevant time, was not given an option to join the scheme. It is

¶25

W.P.(C).No.4680 of 2020

¶26

¶27

submitted that a Parliamentary Committee had considered the issue and had submitted Exhibit P6 report before the Lok Sabha recommending a further chance to retirees after 2000 to join the scheme. However, the said report was not accepted by the Ministry of Finance. The matter was taken up by the Reserve Bank employees which led to a further Parliamentary Committee Report. It is stated that though the matter was taken up before the Government and the RBI, the RBI refused to grant further options as sought for. The petitioner contends that the Ministry of Finance having given it's no objection to the furnishing of a further option, the action of the RBI in refusing to grant the option to the petitioner was completely illegal. It is submitted that the RBI has the financial capacity to grant the pension to persons like the petitioner and the refusal to do so is arbitrary and illegal. It is submitted that after the filing of the writ petition, Ext.P15 order was issued by the Ministry of Finance on 26.06.2020 based on which Ext.P16 was issued by the RBI granting reoption to retired employees on repayment of the CPF with 3% interest. On returning the CPF contribution from the date of

¶28

W.P.(C).No.4680 of 2020

¶29

¶30

his joining service with interest, the petitioner was granted pension from 01.07.2020 only. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to pension from the date of his retirement itself and that the limiting of pension with effect from 01.07.2020 is illegal and arbitrary.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India [1981 KHC 503] contending that pension is not bounty and that there can be no discrimination in the matter of grant of pension. The judgment of the Apex Court in State Of Jharkhand and others vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and

¶32

another [2013(3) KLT 782] is also relied on to contend that retirement benefits are property in the hands of the retired employees.

¶33

A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 1^st respondent stating that the Government of India had, by letter dated 04.02.2002, advised RBI that since four options had already been given to the employees to join the pension

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C).No.4680 of 2020

¶36

scheme after 1990, no further option need be given. It is stated that the RBI had issued Ext.R1(a) letter dated 03.06.2020 seeking permission to extend a further option which was allowed by Ext.P15 and, accordingly, Ext.P16 circular was issued by the RBI extending a further option on the specific condition that pension would be payable from 01.07.2020. The petitioner has been granted the said benefit as well. It is, therefore, contended that since the petitioner was a person who had specifically opted not to join the pension scheme in 1990 while he was in service and had not availed the four further options granted to employees, the petitioner cannot have any legal right to contend that he is entitled to further options at his convenience. It is contended that the petitioner could have opted for being governed by the pension scheme in any of the opportunities provided to the employees and having consistently refused to do so, he cannot now contend that he is entitled to pension from any earlier date except what is specifically provided in Exts.P15 and P16. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent also places reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Zile Singh v. State of

¶37

W.P.(C).No.4680 of 2020

¶38

¶39

Haryana and others [2004 (8) SCC 1], C.Gupta v. GlaxoSmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2007 (7) SCC 171], Mustaqeem and others v. Faiyaz and others [MANU/DE/0639/2019] and Bhagwat Sharan v.

¶40

Purushotham and others [(2020) 6 SCC 387].

¶41

5.I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. The petitioner is a person who was in service of the RBI since 1981. The pension scheme was admittedly initially introduced in the RBI in the year 1990. The petitioner had an option to join the scheme or to continue under the CPF Scheme. By not exercising his option to be governed by the provisions of the Pension Regulations, the petitioner evidently opted to continue under the CPF Scheme. Three further options were given to the employees to come over to the pension scheme. The petitioner could have availed of any such options. However, the petitioner did not do so. During the pendency of the writ petition, Ext.P16 was issued granting a further opportunity for re-option to retired employees. The petitioner exercised the said option and has been granted pension from

¶42

W.P.(C).No.4680 of 2020

¶43

¶44

01.07.2020. The surviving grievance, therefore, is that he

¶45

ought to have been granted the pension from the date of his retirement, that is, from 30.11.2014.

¶46

6.Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I am of the considered opinion that the decisions relied on by the petitioner would not apply to a case like the present one where there were clear options available to the employee concerned to be governed by the provisions of the pension scheme, which he failed to avail. From a scanning of the pleadings and the materials placed on record, no reason is discernible for the refusal on the part of the petitioner to exercise his option to be governed by the pension scheme while he was in service. In the above factual situation, I am of the definite opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to contend that his option should be considered with effect from the date of his retirement. This is more so in view of the fact that Ext.P16 specifically provides that the retired employees and family members of deceased employees will be eligible to

¶47

W.P.(C).No.4680 of 2020

¶48

¶49

draw monthly pension/family pension with effect from 1^st July, 2020. The said benefit having been already granted to the petitioner, I find no reason to grant the reliefs as sought for. The writ petition thus fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶50

sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶51

¶52

W.P.(C).No.4680 of 2020

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4680/2020

¶55

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶56

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF RBI ACT 1934.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF RBI PENSION REGULATIONS, 1990.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF RBI PENSION (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2012.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF UNITED FORUM OF RESERVE BANK OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES LETTER DATED 14.1.2013.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER, MINISTRY OF FINANCE LETTER NO.F NO.11/10/2001-IR DATED 4.2.2002.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION, 16TH LOKSABHA, REPORT NO.20.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF MOF, DFS LETTER NO.11/5/2001-IR DATED 26.2.2018.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF UNITED FORUM LETTER DATED 13.6.2018.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION, 16TH LOKSABHA, 42ND REPORT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF RBI DY. GOVERNOR LETTER NO.CO HRMD NO.6457/21.01.00/2018-2019 DATED 21.9.2018 TO DFS, MINISTRY OF FINANCE.

¶57

W.P.(C).No.4680 of 2020

¶58

¶59

EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER /INTERNAL NOTE
	NO.F NO.11/5/2001-IR BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES (DFS), MINISTRY OF FINANCE.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED 27.1.2020 TO GOVERNOR, RBI.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO THE PETITIONER FROM RBI DATED 30.1.2020.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY RELEVANT PAGES OF 5TH PAY COMMISSION REPORT.
Exhibit P15	TRUE COPY OF MINISTRY OF FINANCE LETTER NO.F NO.11/5/2001/IR DATED 26/6/2020
Exhibit P16	TRUE COPY OF RBI ADMINISTRATION CIRCULAR NO. 1 DATED 14.09.2020
Exhibit P16A	TRUE COPY OF RBI CIRCULAR CO.HRMD.NO. 1807 DATED 18.09.2020
Exhibit P17	TRUE COPY OF PENSION OPTION FORM, FORM 1(R)SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER
Exhibit P18	TRUE COPY OF RBI ADMINISTRATION CIRCULAR NO. 4 DATED 14.10.1995
Exhibit P19	TRUE COPY RBI HR MANAGEMENT SECTION FILE NOT DATED 17.07.2020
Exhibit P20	TRUE COPY OF RELEVENT PAGE OF RBI EMPLOYEES GRATUITY AND SUPERANNUATION FUND REGULATIONS 1975
Exhibit P21	TRUE COPY OF RBI MASTER CIRCULAR ON PENSION DATED 1.07.2020
Exhibit P22	TRUE COPY F RULE 83 OF CCS (PENSION RULES)1972

¶60

W.P.(C).No.4680 of 2020

¶61

¶62

Exhibit	P23 TRUE COPY OF PRE 14.08.2020	SS RELEASE OF RBI DATED
Exhibit	P24 TRUE COPY OF RBI 16525/21.01.2019	LETTER COHRMD NO. -20 DATED 03.06.2020
Exhibit	P25 TRUE COPY O REG REGULATIONS 1935	8 OF RBI PROVIDENT FUND
Exhibit	P26 TRUE COPY OF RTI DATED 16.09.2020 MINISTRY OF FIAN	LETTER OF PETITIONER AND ITS REPLY FROM ANCE DATED 07.10.2020
Exhibit	P27 TRUE COPY OF RTI DATED 22.10.2020	LETTER OF PETITIONER AND ITS REPLY FROM RBI

¶63

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶64

Exhibit R1(a)	True copy of the	letter bearing No. CO
	HRMD No. 16525/21	.01.00/2019-20 dated
	03.06.2020
Exhibit R1(b)	True copy of the	letter bearing No.
	F.No.11/5/2001 da	ted 26/02/2018

¶65

True copy

¶66

PS to Judge

M. T. Mani v. the Governor, Reserve Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. T. Mani v. the Governor, Reserve Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahinabeevi Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Mary Matha Granites Vs the Director of Mining & Geology

Murali Vs the District Collector

Antony K.J Vs Deputy Director of Panchayat

P.J Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

P.P.Saidalavi Vs Kondoty Muncipality