Allowed

Radheya Shyam Mittal v. Uco Bank Kolkatta and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Jan 2014CW/3748/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that an employee granted voluntary retirement is entitled to pension upon completion of 10 years of service under Regulation 14, not 20 years under Regulation 29. The denial was quashed, and the petitioner directed to refund gratuity and GPF within one month.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the petitioner is directed to refund gratuity and GPF to the respondents within one month, after which pension benefits with arrears shall be extended.

Radheya Shyam Mittal Vs Uco Bank Kolkatta… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3748/2001

Radheya Shyam Mittal

Versus

UCO Bank & Anr.

DATE OF ORDER : 13/01/2014 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶8

Mr. Sandeep Saxena, for petitioner Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma, for respondents

¶9

¶10

The petitioner is aggrieved by denial of pensionary benefits after his voluntary retirement.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that application to seek voluntary retirement was made somewhere in the year 1995. It was accepted in the year 1998 with retrospective effect. The petitioner had already completed 24 years of service by the aforesaid time. He was thus entitled to the pensionary benefits. The qualifying service is only of 10 years as per UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (in short “Regulations, 1995” ). The petitioner has been yet denied the benefit on erroneous premises that he was required to complete 20 years of service to become eligible for pensionary benefits. The aforesaid is in violation of Regulation 14 of the Regulations, 1995.

¶12

Learned counsel for respondents submits that Regulation 29 of Regulations, 1995 provides 20 years service for pensionary benefits in case of voluntary retirement. The

¶13

¶14

petitioner has not completed 20 years of service thus was extended benefit of GPF and gratuity. By the time of retirement, the petitioner had completed only 18 years and few months service. The petitioner otherwise remained absent from the year 1987 till 1995. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to the pensionary benefits.

¶15

I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

¶16

The claim of pensionary benefits has been made by the petitioner alleging completion of 24 years of service by the time of voluntary retirement. The petitioner was appointed in the service in the year 1971. If continuance of service till date of voluntary retirement in the year 1995 is taken note of, he had completed 24 years of service by the aforesaid time. The petitioner however remained absent from the year 1987 till the date of voluntary retirement.

¶17

The question comes as to whether petitioner is entitled to the pensionary benefits even then. For the aforesaid purpose, Regulations 14 and 29 of the Regulations, 1995 are relevant thus quoted hereunder for ready reference:

¶18

“14. Qualifying Service – Subject to the other conditions contained in these regulations, an employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service in the Bank on the date of his retirement or the date on which he is deemed to have retired shall qualify for pension.”

¶19

¶20

“29. Pension on Voluntary Retirement. – (1) On or after

¶21

the 1^st day of November, 1993 at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority retire from service;

¶22

Provided that this sub- regulation shall not apply to an employee who is on deputation or on study leave abroad unless after having been transferred or having returned to India he has resumed charge of the post in India and has served for a period of not less than one year;

¶23

Provided further that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking or company or institution or body, whether incorporated or not to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement;

¶24

Provided that this sub- regulation shall not apply to an employee who is deemed to have retired in accordance with clause (l) of regulation 2.

¶25

(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under subregulation (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority;

¶26

Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.

¶27

(3) (a) An employee referred to in sub- regulation (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority

¶28

¶29

to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons therefore;

¶30

(b) On receipt of a request under clause (a) the appointing authority may, subject to the provisions of subregulation (2), consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the notice of three months.

¶31

(4) An employee, who has elected to retire under this regulation and has given necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority;

¶32

Provided that the request for such withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement.

¶33

(5) The qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this regulation shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty-three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation.

¶34

(6) The pension of an employee retiring under this regulation shall be based on the average emoluments as defined under clause (d) of regulation 2 of these regulations and the increase, not exceeding five years in his qualifying service, shall not entitle him to any notional fixation of pay for the purpose of calculating his pension.”

¶35

¶36

Perusal of Regulation 14 shows as to what would be the qualifying period to get benefit of pension. It is of 10 years of service in the Bank. Regulation 29 shows as to when an employee can seek voluntary retirement. It can be when he has rendered 20 years of service. Regulation 29 is not for entitlement of the pension but for voluntary retirement. It is admitted case of both the parties that petitioner sought and granted voluntary retirement.

¶37

Learned counsel for respondents could not refer any other provision for voluntary retirement than Regulation 29. In view of the above, voluntary retirement would not be given to an employee if he has not rendered 20 years of service. The respondents had granted voluntary retirement to the petitioner and now alleging non-completion of 20 years of service by him. In any case, the respondents have admitted completion of 18 years of service after exclusion of period of absence. The Regulation 14 provides for qualifying period to be of 10 years. It is not a case of the respondents that petitioner had not completed 10 years of service. They have denied benefit of pension by considering case of the petitioner under Regulation 29, though the aforesaid is not the provision for qualifying period for pension. The respondents have wrongly invoked Regulation 29 for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether petitioner is entitled to the pension or not. In view of the above, denial of pensionary benefits to the petitioner cannot be said to

¶38

¶39

be just and proper, rather goes contrary to the Regulations, 1995.

¶40

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is however directed to refund the amount of gratuity and GPF to the respondents within a period of one month. The benefit of pension would be extended to the petitioner thereupon with arrears.

¶41

[M.N.BHANDARI], J.

¶42

FRBOHRA/3748CWP2001.doc

¶43

Certificate:

¶44

“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”

¶45

FATEH RAJ BOHRA, SR.P.A.

Radheya Shyam Mittal v. Uco Bank Kolkatta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radheya Shyam Mittal v. Uco Bank Kolkatta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jugal Kishore Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sumer Chand Jain Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Govind Purohit Vs Bank of Inida and Ors.

Sh.Narain Sharma Vs R v v N Ltd, Jaipur

Dr D N Sharma Vs Khetri Vikas Samiti and Ors.

Narain Lal Gupta Vs State of Raj and Ors.