Disposed

Canara Bank and Ors. v. Ranjan Vedasen and Anr.

Patna HC20 Mar 2017L.P.A/418/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a Letters Patent Appeal against a lower court order granting pension benefits to an employee with 19 years, 9 months, and 1 day of service. The High Court allowed the benefit in the specific case but held the legal interpretation as a *suit case* precedent for future reference.

What did the court decide?

The benefit of pension is granted to the petitioner in this specific case, but the principles laid down are not precedent for other cases.

Canara Bank and Ors. Vs Ranjan Vedasen and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.418 of 2016

¶3

¶4

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14389 of 2012

¶5

===========================================================

¶6

Canara Bank, Head office, 112, J.C. Road, Bangalore through its Chairman and Managing Director.

¶7

Chairman & Managing Director, Canara Bank, Head office, 112, J.C. Road, Bangalore.

¶8

The Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank, Employee's Pension Fund, Personnel Wing, Naveen Complex, 14, M.G. Road, Bangalore – 560001.

¶9

Manager, Canara Bank, Employee's Pension Fund, Personnel Wing, Naveen Complex, 14, M.G. Road, Bangalore – 560001.

¶10

The Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, 4/5 Luv Kush Tower, Exhibition Road, Patna 800001.

¶11

.... .... Respondents-Appellant/s

¶12

Versus

¶13

Ranjan Vedasen, Son of Late Rajeshwar Prasad Sinha, Resident of 106, Shankar Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, P.S. Budha Colony, District – Patna.

¶14

… .. Petitioner/ Respondent 1^st Set.

¶15

The Union of India through Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Banking Division, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶16

.... .... Respondent-Respondent 2^nd Set.

¶17

=========================================================== Appearance :

¶18

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajan Ghoshrave, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

¶19

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And

¶20

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶23

Date: 20-03-2017

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the considered view that even though certain arguments with regard to principle and legal question have been raised by the appellant-Bank in this Letters Patent Appeal, considering the fact that the employee, petitioner in the original writ petition and the respondent No.1 herein, Sri Ranjan Vedasen, has been granted the benefit of pension after his

¶25

Patna High Court LPA No.418 of 2016 dt.20-03-2017

¶26

2/2

¶27

retirement, taking note of the fact that instead of completing 20 years’ qualifying service, he has completed 19 years, 9 months and 1 day, the learned Writ Court has given him the benefit of the statutory provision by interpreting and conjointly reading Regulation 29(5) and Regulation 18 of the Canara Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 together, we hold that in this case interference into the matter need not be made. The petitioner in the original writ petition and the respondent No.1 herein, Sri Ranjan Vedasen, be granted the benefit, but the benefit granted to him and the principles laid down in the impugned judgment of the Writ Court in CWJC No.14389 of 2012 shall not be treated as a precedent. It shall not be applicable in any other case and liberty shall be available to the appellant-Bank in question to challenge the principle and the legal question involved in the matter, if required, on a future date in an appropriate case.

¶28

With the aforesaid, Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed

¶29

of.

¶30

(Rajendra Menon, CJ)

¶31

(Sudhir Singh, J)

¶32

Sunil/-

¶33