Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Officers retired between 01/04/1998 and 31/10/2002 Supreme Court Judgement in Bank of Baroda case

Supreme court of India has delivered judgement favouring Bank Officers on 13th Feb 2018 , ordering to fix pension according to pension rules and pay arrears along with 9% interest within four months of the date of order. For the Officers retired between 01/04/1998 and 31/10/2002 basic  pension was fixed by merging DA upto 1610 points instead of 1684 points. The pension was re fixed   w.e.f. from 01/05/2005 by merging DA upto 1684 points. But it was not revised from date of retirement,Now detailed judgement is delivered by SC. 
Following are extracts from  Supreme court Judgement

"First we come to the rigour of the Regulations. The
Regulations have statutory force, having been framed in
exercise of the powers under Section 19(2)(f) of the Act
of 1970 and are binding. They could not have been
supplanted by any executive fiat or order or Joint Note,
which has no statutory basis.
The Joint Note of the
officers also had no statutory force behind it and could
not have obliterated any of the provisions of Act of 1970
or the existing Regulations. Thus, Joint Notes could, not
have taken away the rights that were available under the
Pension Regulations of 1995 to the Officer."
"Thus, in our opinion, the Regulations which were in
force till 2003, would apply with full force and as a
matter of fact, the amendments made in it by addition of
Explanation (c) in Regulation 2(s) did not have the effect
of amending the Regulations relating to pension, as
contained in Regulation 38 read with Regulations 2(d) and
35 of the Regulations of 1995. Even otherwise, if it had
the effect of amending the pay and perks ‘average
emoluments’, as specified in Regulation 2(d), it could not
have operated retrospectively and taken away accrued
rights. Otherwise also, it would have been arbitrary
exercise of power. Besides, there was no binding statutory force of the so called Joint Note of the Officers’
Association, as admittedly, to Officers’ Association even
the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act were not
applicable and joint note had no statutory support, and it
was not open to forgo the benefits available under the
Regulations to those officers who have retired from
1.4.1998 till December 1999 and thereafter, and to deprive them of the benefits of the Regulations.
Thus, by the Joint Note that has been relied upon, no estoppel said to
have been created. There is no estoppel as against the
enforcement of statutory provisions. The Joint Note had
no force of law and could not have been against the spirit
of the statutory Regulations and the basic service
conditions, as envisaged under the Regulations framed
under the Act of 1970. They could not have been tinkered
with in an arbitrary manner, as has been laid down by this
Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation
Limited & Anr. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr., (1986) 3 SCC
156 & Delhi Transport Corporation vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor
Congress, (1991) Supp.1 SCC 600. "
"Reliance has also been placed on the decision of
this Court in D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC
305. It was observed in the context of pension scheme
that was non-contributory in character that the benefit,
which was given under the scheme, was prospective. In all
cases wherever they retire, they would be governed by the
liberalized pension scheme, because the scheme was a
scheme for payment of the pension governed by 1972 Rules.
The date of retirement would be the relevant date. The
revised scheme would be operative from the date mentioned
in the scheme. It was also not a case of taking away the
benefit that had accrued with retrospective effect or
taking away of the vested or accrued rights. Thus, the
decision has no application, rather the spirit of the
decision runs counter to and fails to buttress the
submissions raised on behalf of the banks.
33. The only purpose of the addition of Explanation (c)
to Regulation 2(s), was to take away the actual
computation of the pension on the basis of the salary,
which was drawn in the preceding ten months. Thus, we have no hesitation to strike it down being arbitrary and
repugnant to other provisions/Regulations namely 2(d),
38(1)(2) and 35. The Explanation (c) to Regulation 2(s)
is hereby struck down, as it could not have been enacted
retrospectively to take away accrued rights. Even
otherwise also it is held to be arbitrary and irrational.
More so, in view of the fact that only by way of a
temporary measure, that discrimination was created and the
Explanation was deleted with effect from 1.5.2005.

34. Thus, we set aside the judgment rendered by the High
Court of Delhi and affirm that of High Courts of Karnataka
at Bangalore and the High Court of Madras. The appeals
filed by the Banks are dismissed and the appeal filed by
the Association is allowed. Resultantly, let the amount
which was due and payable be paid with 9% interest, be
calculated and paid within four months from today
. "
 Click on the following link to view Supreme Court Judgement

1 comment:

  1. is this payable to all bank retirees of all the banks who retired during that period ? i retired from bank of india during that period .. is this judgement applicable on my pension? please reply