REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5898 OF 2019 (@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.15783 OF 2017)

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.         ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

TARA CHAND        ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

This appeal has been filed by the Central Bank of

India challenging the judgment of the Division Bench

of the Rajasthan High Court dated 09.03.2017 in the

DB Civil Special Appeal No.817 of 2015 dismissing the

Special Appeal filed by the appellants. The Special

Appeal  was  filed  by  the  appellants  against  the

judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.04.2015

allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent

quashing  the  order  of  the  Bank  dated  12.09.2001

denying  to  grant  pro-rata  pension  upon  opting  for

1

voluntary retirement under the Central Bank of India

Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001.

2. Necessary facts for deciding this appeal are:

On 26.10.1995 Central Bank of India (Employees’)

Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as

“Regulations, 1995) came into force. The respondent-

Tara  Chand  opted  for  the  pension  scheme.  The

respondent’s option for pension scheme was accepted

by  the  Bank.  A  Scheme  for  voluntary  retirement,

namely,  Central  Bank  of  India  Employees  Voluntary

Retirement  Scheme,  2001(hereinafter  referred  to  as

“Scheme, 2001”) was framed which was made effective

from 22.02.2001 to 08.03.2001. Prior to the Scheme

being made effective a circular dated 31.01.2001 was

issued by the Bank by which several clarifications

were issued for smooth implementation of the Scheme.

The respondent submitted an application for voluntary

retirement  on  23.02.2001.  The  application  for

voluntary  retirement  of  respondent  was  accepted  by

the Bank by order dated 26.03.2001. By order dated

12.09.2001,  the  Bank  refused  to  grant  pro-rata

2

pension to the respondent No.1, who had opted for the

voluntary retirement under the Scheme, 2001. A S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.4342 of 2001 was filed by the

respondent  praying  for  quashing  the  order  dated

12.09.2001 and praying for a direction to the Bank to

extend pensionary benefits to the respondent upon his

retirement with effect from 01.04.2001. The learned

Single Judge after considering the Regulations, 1995

and the Scheme, 2001 took the view that Clause 6(ii)

of  the  Scheme,  2001  entitled  the  respondent  to

pension as per Pension Regulations, 1995.  The writ

petition was allowed and the order dated 12.06.2001

was set aside with direction to the Bank to extend

benefits  of  pro-rata/proportionate  pension  to  the

respondent to the extent of his entitlement in terms

of the Scheme, 2001 read with Regulations, 1995. The

Bank aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single

Judge  filed  Special  Appeal,  which  too  had  been

dismissed by the Division Bench. The Division Bench

took the view that the respondent who was above 40

years of age and had completed 11 years of service in

the Bank was definitely entitled to opt for voluntary

3

retirement and simultaneously claim pension under the

Scheme. The Division Bench took the view that Clause

6(ii) of the Scheme, 2001 entitles the respondent to

pension. The Division Bench placed reliance on the

judgment of this Court in  Bank of India and another

Vs.  K.  Mohandas  and  others,  (2009)  5  SCC  313.

Aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court, the

Bank has come up in this appeal.  

3. Shri  Debal  Banerjee,  learned  senior  counsel,

appearing  for  the  appellant  contended  that  as  per

Clause 6(ii) of the Scheme, 2001, an employee seeking

voluntary retirement under the Scheme, 2001 will be

eligible for pension only as per Regulations, 1995.

It is submitted that eligibility to apply under the

Scheme, 2001 does not ipso facto entitle an employee

to  receive  pension.  An  employee  is  entitled  for

pension as per Regulations, 1995. He submits that as

per Regulation 28 w.e.f. 01.09.2000, an employee is

entitled  for  pension  who  opts  to  retire  before

attaining  the  age  of  superannuation,  but  after

rendering service for a minimum period of 15 years in

4

terms of any Scheme. He submits that the respondent

having  not  rendered  15  years  of  service  is  not

entitled for the pension and the Bank has rightly

rejected  it.  Shri  Banerjee  further  relied  on  the

judgment of this Court in  Bank of Baroda and others

vs.  Ganpat  Singh  Deora,  (2009)  3  SCC  217,  Pubjab

National Bank and others vs. Ram Kishan, (2014) 13

SCC 485 and Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank

and another vs. Dharam Pal Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 484.

4. Dr.  Manish  Singhvi,  learned  senior  counsel,

appearing for the respondent refuting the submissions

of  the  appellant  contends  that  the  respondent  was

clearly entitled for pension and the High Court has

committed no error in allowing the claim of pension

of the respondent. It is submitted that as per Clause

4 of the Scheme, an employee who has completed 15

years of service in the Bank or 40 years of age will

be eligible to seek voluntary retirement under the

Scheme and is eligible for pension. The respondent

having  completed  40  years  of  age  was  clearly

eligible. He further submits that as per Regulation

5

14 of Regulations, 1995, an employee who has rendered

a minimum of 10 years of service in the Bank on the

date of the retirement or the date on which he is

deemed to have retired shall qualify for pension. The

respondent having rendered 11 years of service was

clearly eligible for pension.  

5. Dr.  Singhvi,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the

respondent  has  placed  reliance  on  the  judgment  of

this  Court  in  Bank  of  India  and  another  Vs.  K.

Mohandas and others, (2009) 5 SCC 313  and  National

Insurance  Company  Limited  and  another  vs.  Kirpal

Singh, (2014)5 SCC 189.  Dr. Singhvi further submits

that  the  present  is  a  case  where  the  respondent

applied for pension in the year 2001 and for the last

18 years he is waiting for pension. Hence, present is

a case where this Court may not interfere with the

impugned judgment of the High Court.

6. We have considered the submissions of the parties

and perused the records.

6

7. We may first notice the relevant provisions of

the Scheme, 2001. Clause 4 deals with the eligibility

to the following effect:

“4. ELIGIBILITY:-

4.1 All permanent employees of the Bank will be eligible to seek voluntary retirement under the scheme provided they meet the following eligibility criteria as on the date of application: -

a) they  have  completed  15  years  of service in the Bank

OR

b) 40 years of age.

4.2 However, the employees falling in the following categories are not eligible to seek  voluntary  retirement  under  the scheme:-

a)All existing Specialists Officers; b)Officers/employees  who  have  executed

service bonds and have not completed it;

c)Employees serving abroad under special arrangements/bonds;

d)Employees  against  whom  disciplinary proceedings  are  contemplated/pending or who are under suspension;

e)Employees appointed on contract basis; f)Any other category of employees as may

be specified by the management.”   

7

8. Clause 6 deals with the other benefits, which is

to the following effect:

“  6. OTHER BENEFITS:-

An  employee  seeking  voluntary  retirement under the Scheme will be eligible for the following benefits in addition to the ex- gratia amount mentioned in Clause 5 above of this Scheme:-

i) Gratuity  as  per  Payment  of  Gratuity Act, 1972 or Gratuity payable under the Service Rules as the case may be, as per existing rules;

ii) a) Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per Central Bank of India (Employees’)  Pension  Regulations  1995 (in case of those who have opted for Pension and otherwise eligible for the same)

OR

b) Bank’s contribution towards PF as per  existing rules (in respect of employees  opted to PF)

iii)Leave encashment as per existing rules.”

9. It is true that as per Clause 4 any employee who

has 15 years of service or completed 40 years of age

is eligible to apply for voluntary retirement under

the Scheme. There is no dispute that the respondent

was eligible to apply for voluntary retirement, other

8

benefits under the Scheme have been extended to the

respondent  and  only  limited  issue  in  the  present

appeal is entitlement of the respondent for pension.

Clause 6(ii), which is relevant provision regarding

entitlement  of  the  claim  provides  that  “Pension

(including commuted value of pension) as per Central

Bank  of  India  (Employees’)  Pension  Regulations,

1995……” Thus, payment of pension under the Scheme has

to be as per Pension Regulations, 1995. Thus, we have

to refer to the Pension Regulations to find out the

entitlement of the respondent. Regulation 14 which is

relied by the learned counsel for respondent provides

as follows:

“Regulation 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.”

10. Regulation 14 begins with the words “subject to

the other conditions contained in these regulations”.

Further, an employee who has rendered a minimum of

ten years of service in the Bank on the date of his

9

retirement or the date on which he is deemed to have

retired  shall  qualify  for  pension.  Thus,  this

qualifying  service  is  relevant  when  a  person  has

completed  10  years  of  service  on  the  date  of  his

retirement.  The  retirement  has  been  defined  in

definition  Clause  2(y),  which  is  to  the  following

effect:

“”Retirement”  means cessation from Bank’s service

(a)on  attaining  the  age  of superannuation  specified  in  Service Regulations or Settlements;  

(b)on voluntary retirement in accordance with  provisions  contained  in Regulation 29 of these regulations;  

(c)on premature retirement by the Bank before  attaining  the  age  of superannuation  specified  in  Service Regulations or Settlement;

11. Voluntary retirement in the case of respondent is

not retirement which is covered within the definition

of Clause 2(y) on strict interpretation of definition

clause. Furthermore, as clear from the opening words,

the said qualifying service is “subject to the other

conditions  contained  in  Regulations”.  Chapter  V  of

the Regulations, 1995 deals with classes of pension.

10

Different classes of pension include superannuation

pension,  pension  on  voluntary  retirement,  invalid

pension,  compassionate  allowance,  premature

retirement pension and compulsory retirement pension.

Classes of pension specifically defined in Chapter V

and in a sense retirement under Voluntary Retirement

Scheme was not contemplated when the Regulations were

made in 1995. Regulation 28 was amended in the year

2002 w.e.f. 01.09.2000 whereby an employee who opts

for  retirement  before  superannuation,  but  after

rendering service for a minimum period of 15 years

was also entitled for pension. The respondent is not

covered by proviso to Regulation 28. As noted above,

as per Clause 6(ii) of the Scheme 2001 entitlement

being on the basis of Pension Regulations, 1995, the

respondent shall be entitled only for pension if he

falls in any of the classes of pension in Chapter V.

We may notice that proviso to Regulation 28 although

was amended w.e.f. 01.09.2000 but it was clarified by

Circular  dated  31.01.2001  that  the  employees,  who

opted for pension but completed minimum 15 years of

service and opt for voluntary retirement under this

11

Scheme would also be eligible for pro-rata pension.

Para 2(A)(2.5) is relevant which is quoted below:

“2.5 In terms of Clause 6 of the Scheme, an employee  seeking  voluntary  retirement under this Scheme will, in addition to the  ex-gratia  amount  to  the  extent stated therein, be eligible for gratuity as per existing Act/Rules, as the case may be, and pension (including commuted value  of  pension)  as  per  Pension Regulations (in case of those who opted for pension and otherwise eligible for the same) or Banks’ contribution towards PF  (in  respect  of  employees  opted  to PF),  Leave  encashment  as  per  existing rules.

In this context, it is clarified that in terms  of  the  proposed  amendments  to Pension  Regulations,  the  employees  who opted for pension but completed minimum 15  years  of  service  and  opt  for voluntary  retirement  under  this  Scheme would  also  be  eligible  for  pro-rata pension  for  the  period  of  service rendered  as  if  they  are  to  retire  on attaining the age of superannuation. In other  words,  such  employees  are  not eligible  for  the  addition  of  5  years notional  weightage  which  is  otherwise available  to  other  pension  optees retired voluntarily under Regulation 29 of  Pension  Regulations.  This  provision is  applicable  pending  adoption  of  the amendment  to  Regulation  28  of  Central Bank  of  India  (Employees’)  Pension Regulations, 1995, through due process.”

12

12. Now, we come to the judgment of this Court relied

by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties.  Learned

counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment

of this Court in Bank of Baroda and others vs. Ganpat

Singh Deora (supra) where this Court had occasion to

consider  Bank  of  Baroda  (Employees)  Pension

Regulations,  1995  and  Bank  of  Baroda  Employees

Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001. In the above case,

the respondent -employee had rendered only 13 years

of service and having completed 40 years of age was

eligible under the Scheme, 2001. Paragraph 4 of the

judgment  gives  the  facts.  Regulation  28  of

Regulations,  1995  is  pari  materia  to  the  amended

Regulation  28  of  Regulations,  1995.  Paragraph  8

contains  amended  Regulation  28,  which  is  to  the

following effect:

“8.  The  said  amended  Regulation  28  was published in the Gazette of India on 2-1- 2004 and provides as follows:

“28.  Superannuation  Pension.-  Super- annuation  Pension  shall  be  granted  to  an employee who has retired on his attaining the age of Superannuation specified in the Service Regulations or settlements:

Provided that, with effect from 1-9-2000 pension  shall  also  be  granted  to  an

13

employee  who  opts  to  retire  before attaining  the  age  of  superannuation,  but after  rendering  service  for  a  minimum period of 15 years in terms of any scheme that may be framed for such purpose by the Board with the approval of the Government.”

13. Regulation  29  of  Bank  of  Baroda  Regulations

provided  for  pension  on  voluntary  retirement.  The

similar  argument  was  raised  in  the  above  case  on

behalf  of  the  employee  which  has  been  noted  in

paragraph  22  of  the  judgment,  which  is  to  the

following effect:

“22.  Mr.  Agarwala's  submissions  were strongly  opposed  by  Ms.  Aishwarya  Bhati, learned  advocate  appearing  for  the respondent. She emphatically contended that in  a  case  involving  voluntary  retirement Regulation 29 would not apply and that, in fact, Regulation 14 would be relevant. Ms. Bhati  urged  that  Regulation  29  of  the Pension  Regulations  dealt  not  with voluntary  retirement  under  a  Scheme  but with  cases  of  premature  retirement  which would  be  quite  clear  from  the  wording thereof.  Ms.  Bhati  urged  that  Sub- regulation  (1)  of  Regulation  29  provides for a situation where an employee wishes to retire from service even in the absence of a  Voluntary  Retirement  Scheme.  The Regulation contemplates that in such a case the  employee  is  not  only  required  to complete 15 years of service but is also required to give notice of not less than 3 months  in  writing  to  the  Appointing

14

Authority,  and,  thereafter,  retire  from service.”

14. In paragraphs 28 to 33, this Court dealing with

Regulations as well as Scheme laid down following:

“28. However, we are inclined to agree with Ms.  Bhati  that  Regulation  29  does  not contemplate voluntary retirement under the Voluntary  Retirement  Scheme  and  applies only to such employees who themselves wish to retire de hors any Scheme of Voluntary Retirement, after having completed 15 years of qualifying service for the said purpose. There is a distinct difference between the two situations and Regulation 29 would not cover  the  case  of  an  employee  opting  to retire  on  the  basis  of  a  Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

29.  Furthermore,  Regulation  2  of  the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001, of the appellant-Bank  merely  prescribes  a  period of qualifying service for an employee to be eligible to apply for voluntary retirement.

30. On the other hand, Regulations 14 and 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, relate to  the  period  of  qualifying  service  for pension under the said Regulations, in two different  situations.  While  Regulation  14 provides that in order to be eligible for pension an employee would have to render a minimum of 10 years’ service, Regulation 29 is applicable to the employees choosing to retire  from  service  pre-maturely,  and  in their case the period of qualifying service would be 15 years.

 31. The facts of this case, however, do not attract  the  provisions  of  Regulation  29

15

since the respondent accepted the offer of voluntary  retirement  under  the  Scheme framed  by  the  Bank  and  not  on  his  own volition  de  hors  any  Scheme  of  Voluntary Retirement. In such a case, Regulation 14 read  with  Regulation  32  providing  for premature retirement would not also apply to  the  case  of  the  respondent.  While Regulation 2 of the BOBEVRS-2001 speaks of eligibility for applying under the Scheme, Regulation 14 of the Pension Regulations, 1995,  contemplates  a  situation  whereunder an employee would be eligible for premature pension.  The  two  provisions  are  for  two different  purposes  and  for  two  different situations. However, Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, after amendment made  provision  for  situations  similar  to the one in the instant case.  32.  In  the  absence  of  any  particular provision for payment of pension to those who  opted  for  BOBEVRS-2001  other  than Regulation  11(ii)  of  the  Scheme,  we  are once again left to fall back on the Pension Regulations,  1995,  and  the  amended provisions  of  Regulation  28  which  brings within the scope of Superannuation Pension employees  who  opted  for  the  Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which will be clear from the  Explanatory  Memorandum.  However,  the period  of  qualifying  service  has  been retained as 15 years for those opting for BOBEVRS-2001  and  is  treated  differently from premature retirement where the minimum period of qualifying service has been fixed at 10 years in keeping with Regulation 14 of the Pension Regulations, 1995.

33. We are, therefore, of the view that not having  completed  the  required  length  of qualifying  service  as  provided  under Regulation 28 of the 1995 Regulations, the respondent  was  not  eligible  for  pension

16

under the Pension Regulations, 1995, of the appellant Bank.”

15. The above judgment was subsequently followed in

Regional  Manager,  Punjab  National  Bank  and  another

vs. Dharam Pal Singh and Punjab National Bank and

others vs. Ram Kishan (supra).

16. The  judgment  on  which  much  reliance  has  been

placed by the learned counsel for the respondent is

Bank of India and another vs. K. Mohandas and others

(supra).  The  issue  arose  for  consideration  in  the

above case has been noticed in paragraph 24 of the

judgment, which is to the following effect:

“24. The principal question that falls for our determination is: whether the employees (having completed 20 years of service) of these banks (Bank of India, Punjab National Bank,  Punjab  &  Sind  Bank,  Union  Bank  of India  and  United  Bank  of  India)  who  had opted  for  voluntary  retirement  under  VRS 2000 are entitled to addition of five years of  notional  service  in  calculating  the length of service for the purpose of the said  Scheme  as  per  Regulation  29(5)  of Pension Regulations, 1995?”

17

17. In the above case, the Scheme was noted as VRS

2000. Under the aforesaid Scheme eligibility was to

employee  who  had  rendered  minimum  of  15  years  of

service or completed 40 years of age. In the above

case, the judgment of this Court in  Bank of Baroda

and others vs. Ganpat Singh Deora (supra) was relied

by  the  Bank,  which  judgment  was  noticed  and  this

Court laid down following in paragraphs 61 and 63:

“61. The observations made by this Court in Bank  of  Baroda  (2009  (3)  SCC  217)  which have been quoted above and relied upon by the  banks  in  support  of  their  contention have  to  be  understood  in  the  factual backdrop  namely,  that  the  employee  had completed only 13 years of service and, was not  eligible  for  the  pension  under  the Pension  Regulations,  1995  and  for  the benefit  of  addition  of  five  years  to qualifying service under Regulation 29(5), an employee must have completed 20 years of service.  The  question  therein  was  not identical in form with the question here to be decided.  

63. The decision of this Court in Bank of Baroda is, thus, clearly distinguishable as the  employee  therein  had  not  completed qualifying  service  much  less  20  years  of service for being eligible to the weightage under  Regulation  29(5)  and  cannot  be applied to the present controversy nor does that matter decide the question here to be decided in the present group of matters.”

18

18. The judgment of  Bank of Baroda and others vs.

Ganpat Singh Deora (supra) was not departed with but

distinguished on the facts. The judgment in  Bank of

India and another vs. K. Mohandas and others (supra)

is clearly distinguishable and is not attracted.  

19. Dr.  Singhvi  has  placed  much  reliance  on  the

judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company

Limited and another vs. Kirpal Singh, (2014) 5 SCC

189. In the above case, this Court had occasion to

consider  the  SVRS  Scheme,  2004.  Under  the  General

Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the

eligibility  of  the  Scheme  was  confined  to  those

employees who have attained the age of 40 years and

completed 10 years of qualifying service as on the

date of notification. Clause 6 of Scheme, 2004 sub-

clause 1(c) provided that pension shall be payable as

per  the  General  Insurance  (Employees’)  Pension

Scheme, 1995. The Scheme, which was considered in the

above case in Bank of Baroda(supra), is pari materia

to the Scheme of the Central Bank of India, 2001. We

feel ourselves bound by judgment of this Court in

19

Bank of Baroda vs. Ganpat Singh Deora (supra), which

judgment is directly on the similar Regulations and

the Scheme. There being two Judge Bench judgment on

the  similar  Regulations  and  Scheme,  we  are  not

inclined  to  accede  to  the  request  of  the  learned

counsel for the respondent that the matter needs to

be referred to a larger Bench to consider the Bank of

Baroda vs. Ganpat Singh Deora and National Insurance

vs. Kirpal Singh. The judgment of two Judge Bench in

National Insurance vs. Kirpal Singh (supra) being on

different  Regulations  and  Scheme,  we  rest  our

judgment following two Judge Bench judgment of this

Court  in  Bank  of  Baroda  vs  Ganpat  Singh  Deora

(supra).  

20. In view of what we have said above, we are of the

view  that  the  High  Court  has  not  correctly

interpreted the Scheme and the Regulations. On the

submission of the learned counsel for the respondent

in the facts of the present case that this Court may

not interfere with the impugned judgment since the

respondent  is  waiting  for  the  last  18  years  to

20

receive pension, we are of the view that when the

Court has to examine interpretation of a statutory

Regulation, Scheme and the benefits to be extended to

the employees, statutory regime in the Scheme has to

be adhered to and with regard to the case of one

individual, no exception can be made. We, thus, do

not  accept  the  above  submission  of  the  learned

counsel for the respondent.

21. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this appeal

is allowed, judgments of the High Court are set aside

and  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  respondent  is

dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.

......................J.                                   ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

......................J.                                   ( NAVIN SINHA ) New Delhi, July 31, 2019.

21