http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: THE STATE BANK OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI A.N. GUPTA ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/09/1997

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                CIVIL APPEAL No. 9943 OF 1983                       J U D G M E N T D. P. WADHWA      These are  two appeals  and are  directed  against  the common judgment  dated February  25, 1980  of the Delhi High Court by which the High Court not only directed that pension and provident  fund be  paid to  the respondents,  who  were working as  Assistants, but also awarded damages to them and against the  appellant-Bank for wrongfully withholding these payments. The  operative part of the impugned judgment reads thus:      "In the  result, we direct that the      Bank shall pay within four weeks to      Sarvshri Gupta  (respondent  in  CA      No. 2141/80) and Gulati (respondent      in CA No. 9943/83):      1. the  entire pension  fund due as      calculated under  the  Pension  and      Guarantee Fund Rules;      2. a sum equivalent to 9% pre annum      by way  of damages  for  wrongfully      withholding  the  aforesaid  amount      from the  date of retirement to the      date of actual payment; and      3. the  provident  fund  due  along      with  interest   plus   an   amount      equivalent 9%  per annum  by way of      damages from the date of retirement      to the date of payment.      Amounts  already   paid  under  our      order of 19th December, 1979, shall      be   deducted    from   the   above      payments."      Both Gupta  and Gulati  had retired from the service of the Bank  after putting varying years of service and claimed pension and provident fund. These were denied to them by the Bank on  the ground  that there were certain lapses on their part while  in service  and that under the provisions of the relevant rules,  as applicable, these amounts could be with-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

held. There claims were resisted by the Bank relying on Rule 11 of  Rules and  Regulations of  the Imperial Bank of India Pension and  Guarantee Fund  (for short ‘Pension Rules’) and Rule 20  of the  Imperial Bank of India Employee’s Provident Fund Rules. These Rules read as under:      "Rule 11.  The  retirement  of  all      officers  of   the  Bank  shall  be      subject  to  the  sanction  of  the      Executive Committee  of the Central      board. The  retirement of all other      employees  of  the  Bank  shall  be      subject  to  the  sanction  of  the      Executive Committee  or  the  Local      Board    concerned    with    their      employment. Any  Officer  or  other      employee  who   shall   leave   the      service   without    sanction    as      required by this rule shall forfeit      all  claim   upon  the   fund   for      pension.      Rule 20.  When a  member resigns or      retires from  the  service  of  the      bank he shall, if he has served the      Bank for  a period of five years or      more  (including   service  in  the      Presidency Banks),  be entitled  to      receive the  balance at  his credit      in the fund. Provided that when any      member resigning  or retiring  from      the service  of the Bank is under a      liability incurred  by him  to  the      Bank,    the     trustees    shall,      irrespective of the duration of his      service, pay to the Bank out of the      balance at  his credit  in the fund      any amount  due by  him to the Bank      (not exceeding in any case the sums      contributed  by  the  Bank  to  his      account  in   the  fund   and   any      interest credited to his account on      the sums so contributed)."      There are  separate  rules  governing  the  service  of Assistants in the Imperial Bank of India (Service Rules, for short). Of  these Rules, 25 and 26 would be relevant and are set down as under:      "25.  An   Assistant  may   at  the      discretion   of    the    Executive      Committee be  called upon to retire      from  the   Bank’s   service   upon      completion  of  twenty-five  years’      service.      26. All  Assistants shall retire at      fifty-five years of age or upon the      completion of thirty years’ service      whichever occurs first:      Provided   that    the    Executive      Committee may  extent the period of      service of  an  Assistant  who  has      attained  the   age  of  fifty-five      years  (fifty-eight   years  w.e.f.      1.4.1967) or  has completed  thirty      years’    service    should    such      extension be  deemed  desirable  in      the interests of the Bank.      Note - For the purposes of rules 25

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

    and 26 service shall count:-      (i) in  the case  of  an  Assistant      first engaged  by  the  Bank  as  a      Probationary  Assistant,  from  the      commencement  of  his  Probationary      service  or   from  the   date   he      attained  the   age  of  twenty-one      years if  his probationary  service      commenced before such date; and      (ii)  in   the  case  of  any  such      Assistant, from  the  date  of  his      confirmation in  his first  post in      the Bank  in whatever  capacity  it      may have  been or  from the date he      attained  the   age  of  twenty-one      years if  he was  confirmed in  the      Bank’s  service   before  attaining      that age."      When special  leave was  granted by  this Court, it was directed that cost in any event shall be paid by the Bank to the respondents.  There was  also ex-parte  stay relating to damages awarded  under paras  (2) and  (3) of  the operative part of  the impugned  judgment quoted  above. It was stated before us  that all  the amounts  due to respondents towards their pension and provident fund have since been paid except the damages  as awarded  by the  impugned judgment which had been stayed by this Court.      Imperial  Bank  or  India  was  constituted  under  the Imperial Bank of India Act, 1920. Both Gupta and Gulati were working  as   Assistants  in  the  Imperial  Bank  when  the undertaking of  the Imperial  Bank was  transferred  to  the State Bank  of India,  the appellant herein, under the State of India  Act, 1955.  All the service regulations which were applicable to  the employees  of the  Imperial Bank remained operative when  these employees  became the employees of the State Bank of India. Central Board of Directors of the State Bank were  empowered to  make regulations  after  consulting with the Reserve Bank of India with the previous sanction of the Central  Government. As  far as  the present two appeals are concerned,  there has  not been  any change in the Rules and Regulations  relating to  the Pension and Guarantee Fund and the Employees Provident Fund Rules.      To understand  the rival  contentions, we may note some of the relevant facts in each of the two appeals.      Respondent Gupta  (in CA  No. 2141/80) attained the age of 58  years on August 14, 1972 and retired from the service of the  Bank under  Rule 26  of the  Service Rules. The Bank issued him  a memorandum  to  the  effect  that  as  he  had attained the  age of  58 years,  "it was no longer necessary for him  to attend  the office  from August 14, 1972". There were certain  allegations against  Gupta in  respect of  his work between  February 1968 to July 1970 while he was posted as Superintendent  in the Stationery Department of the Bank. He was placed under suspension on July 19, 1972. Since there was no  rule to  continue with an enquiry after the employee reached the age of superannuation, Gupta was directed not to attend the office and, as noted above, he had retired within a period  of less  than one  month  from  the  date  of  his suspension.      The appellant  Gulati (in  CA 9943/83) attained the age of 58 years on April 3, 1970. However, the Bank had extended his service  by letter  dated September  15,  1969  for  two years, i.e.,  upto April  3, 1972. This the Bank did relying on its power under proviso to Rule 26 of the Rules governing the service  of Assistants.  Gulati was,  however, suspended

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

w.e.f. July  27, 1971  and on October 26, 1971 he was served with  a   charge-sheet.  Though   there  were   no   further proceedings in  the matter, Gulati was asked by letter dated March 22,  1972 that  it had  been decided  by the  Bank  to require him  to resign  and that  if he  failed to do so, he would be  dismissed from  service. Gulati did not resign. He reiterated the  denial of  the charges  levelled against him and sought  an enquiry.  The Bank  did not pass any order of dismissal and  rather by  letter dated  March 13,  1972 gave opportunity to Gulati to ask for documents, if any, that may be required  by him  by April  6, 1972.  By April  3,  1972, Gulati retired  from the  service of  the Bank on completing the period  of two  years after the age of 58 years by which the Bank had chosen to extend his services.      Now, the  appellant Gupta  after August  14,  1972  and appellant Gulati  after April  3, 1972 requested the Bank to pay them  their pension  and provident fund as may be due to them under  the relevant service regulations. Gupta was told that he  had retired  from the  service of  the Bank and the matter of  payment of  his retirement  benefits was engaging the attention of the Bank. Though the Bank never turned down the demand  of Gupta to get the benefits as due to him after his  retirement,  yet  these  were  not  paid  to  him.  He, therefore, filed a writ petition in the High court which was allowed by  a learned  single Judge  an  the  Bank  went  in Letters Patent  Appeal to  the Division  Bench of  the  High Court. Similarly,  in the  case of Gulati, various reminders were  sent  by  him  demanding  payment  of  his  pensionary benefits and  since there  was no  response from  the  Bank, Gulati also  filed a  writ petition  for a  direction to the Bank to pay him his retirement benefits.      Both the  LPA filed by the Bank against the judgment of the learned  single Judge  in the case of Gupta and the writ petition filed  by Gulati  were heard together by a Division Bench of  the High Court. By the impugned judgment while the appeal filed  by the  Bank was  dismissed, the writ petition filed by  Gulati was  allowed.  The  Division  Bench  issued directions both  in the  case of Gupta and Gulati which have been set out above.      It was  contended before us by Mr. Sunil Dogra, learned counsel for  the Bank,  that the respondents did not have an automatic right  to get  full pension on retirement from the Bank service  and as  per Rule 11, unless and until the Bank sanctioned the  same, the  respondents would not be entitled to the  benefit of pension as a matter of right. It was also submitted that  "sanction to  retirement" must  be read  and understood as  sanction to  the service preceding retirement and under  Rule 11, pension could be held to be payable only when  the  entire  service  of  the  retiring  employee  was certified by  the sanction of the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank. The argument was that sanction of service must  be understood  in the  context of  approval of service and  unless, therefore,  the employee  had conducted himself properly in the course of his employment in the Bank and if  so held by the Bank, the employee would only then be entitled to  the pension.  Similar was  the argument  by the Bank regarding  payment of  provident fund  to the  retiring employee. We  may note  that though  the trustees who manage pension and  guarantee fund are common, the pension fund and guarantee fund  are administered separately in two sections. Under Rule  5-A of  the Pension Rules, every employee has to contribute monthly  to  the  pension  section  of  the  fund certain amount of percentage of his salary. The contribution so made carry interest at the prescribed rate. Under Rule 6, the Bank is also to subscribe monthly to the pension section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

of the  fund an  amount equal  to that  contributed  by  the employee. Under  Rule 7, no employee shall have any right of property in  the fund beyond the amount of his contributions to the pension section of the fund with the interest accrued thereon. Under  Rule 15  of  the  Employees  Provident  Fund Rules, similar  contributions are  to be made to the fund by the employee and the Bank which again is to carry interest.      Mr.  Chatterjee,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the respondents,  submitted   that  the   respondents  would  be entitled to  full pension as well as provident fund standing to their  credit on  their superannuation  from the Bank. He submitted, with  reference to  various Rules,  that it could not  be  said  that  when  an  employee  superannuated,  his retirement benefits  could be  paid only  to him  when these were sanctioned  by the  Bank after  looking into  his  past record of  service. Reference was made particularly to Rules 10, 14, and 19 of the Pension Rules. Stress was more laid on Rule 19. We may set out these Rules as under:      "10. An employee dismissed from the      Bank’s service  for wilful  neglect      or fraud  shall forfeit  all claims      upon the fund for pension.      11. The  retirement of all officers      of the Bank shall be subject to the      sanction of the Executive Committee      of   the    Central   board.    The      retirement of  all other  employees      of the Bank shall be subject to the      sanction of the Executive Committee      or the  Local Board  concerned with      their employment.  Any  Officer  or      other employee  who shall leave the      service   without    sanction    as      required by this rule shall forfeit      all  claim   upon  the   fund   for      pension.      14. If  an officer  or assistant of      the Bank who is entitled to pension      under these  rules wishes to accept      employment in any other bank at any      time  or   any   other   commercial      employment within  two  years  from      the date  of retirement,  he should      obtain the previous sanction of the      Executive Committee  of the Central      Board.  Should  he  undertake  such      employment  without   the  sanction      required under  this rule  it shall      be competent  for the  trustees  to      withdraw the pension payable to him      either in whole or in part at their      discretion.      19. (i)  An employee  retiring from      the  Bank’s  service  after  having      completed  twenty   years’  service      with the  Bank shall be entitled to      pension provided  the employee  has      attained the  age of fifty years if      employed on  the staff  in India or      the female staff in London or sixty      years if employed on the male staff      in London.      (ii) An  employee retiring from the      Bank’s   service    after    having      completed twenty  years’ service on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

    the staff  in India  and/or on  the      staff in  London shall  be entitled      to pension  irrespective of the age      he shall  have attained if he shall      satisfy the  authority competent to      sanction his retirement by approved      medial  certificate   or  otherwise      that  he   is   incapacitated   for      further       active       service.      (Notwithstanding  anything  to  the      contrary   in   these   rules   and      regulations  the   total  of   such      employee’s service whether in India      or London  shall count  for pension      under this rule.)      (iii) An  employee who has attained      the  age of fifty-five or who shall      be proved  to the  satisfaction  of      the authority competent to sanction      his retirement  to  be  permanently      incapacitated by  bodily or  mental      infirmity   from   further   active      service (such  infirmity not  being      the   result    of   irregular   or      intemperate  habits)  may,  at  the      discretion  of   the  trustees,  be      granted a proportionate pension.      Mr. Dogra  referred to a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court  in T.  Narsiah vs. State of Bank of India & Ors. [(1978) II  LL) 173]  which according  to him  has taken the view what  was being  advanced by the Bank. In this judgment of the  Andhra Pradesh High Court as well as of the impugned judgment of  the Delhi High Court there is also reference to an unreported decision of the Bombay High Court in M/s. J.K. Kulkarni vs.  State Bank of India (Misc. Petition No. 964 of 1977 decided  on November 29, 1977) where the learned single Judge held  that Rule  11 applied to all retirements but the Bank  would  be  entitled  to  with-hold  sanction  only  in circumstances similar  to Rule 10 and for this bank would be required to  hold a  fair and  honest enquiry which could be held even  after the  employee had retired. It was stated by the learned  Judge that  Rule 11  contemplated two different types of  termination of  service. He  expressed his opinion thus: "One  would be  retirement in terms of any of the Rule either the  Service Rules  or Pension  Rules and  the  other would be  leaving the  service without  bothering to  obtain anybody’s permission or sanction. It stands to reason that a person who  leaves service  without  caring  to  obtain  any sanction under  Rule 11,  can safely  be denied any claim to pension in  terms of  the last  clause of  Rule 11. However, that clause  also covers  all cases  of retirement where the retirement is  accompanied by  the sanction of the Executive Committee. Here  the Executive committee may have discretion in issuing  certificate by  looking to the service career of an employee".  Then after  discussing Pension  Rules and the Service Rules, the learned Judge concluded as under:      "From that  point  of  view,  I  am      satisfied that  the Bank’s proposal      to hold a formal inquiry even after      retirement  of  the  petitioner  is      proper. They  would of  course give      him all reasonable opportunity that      is required  in the  inquiry of any      domestic Tribunal  and observe  the      rules of natural justice. They have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

    a  right   to  satisfy   themselves      regarding  the   conduct   of   the      Petitioner while he was in service.      If they  are able  to reach  a firm      decision within  the findings which      might  fall   under  Rule  10,  the      Committee does seem, in my view, to      have  a   right  to   withhold  the      sanction.  This  is  all  that  the      Committee is seeking to do."      While the Delhi High Court expressed its dissent to the view expressed  by Bombay High Court, it was accepted by the Andhra  Pradesh   High  Court.  Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court decision was  rendered by a learned single Judge and we have been shown  an unreported  decision of  the appellate  Bench against that  order wherein view of the learned single Judge has been upheld.      In the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court (1978) Vol. 2  LLJ 173)  the petitioner was an officer in the State Bank. Disciplinary  proceedings were  initiated against  him but before these could be completed the officer was informed by the Bank through its letter dated May 5, 1976 that it was not possible  for the  Bank to  complete the enquiry well in time before  the officer attaining the age of 60 years which was the  date of  his superannuation.  He was  told he would therefore cease  to be  in the Bank’s service on the date of his superannuation  and he would not be paid any subsistence allowance with  effect  from  that  date.  The  officer  was treated as having retired and ceasing to be in employment of the Bank  with effect from May 10, 1976. The officer claimed his Provident  Fund and Pension and on Bank’s refusal to pay the same,  a writ  petition was  filed. During the course of the hearing  of the  writ petition  it was  submitted by the Bank that  it had since decided to pay the Provident Fund in full to  the officer  and Bank  had also no objection to pay his contribution  to the  pension and  that as  far  as  the payment of  Bank’s share  in the Pension Fund was concerned, the officer  was not  entitled thereto  unless and until the Bank granted  the same  in accordance  with Rule  11 of  the Pension Rules.  It was  contended before  the Andhra Pradesh High Court  by the  officer that Rules 11 had no application in his  case and  on attaining  the age of superannuation he automatically went out of the service of the Bank. The Bank, however, relied  on Rule  11 to withhold Bank’s contribution to the  Pension Fund. The court was of the view that Rule 11 had to be read in its context and consistent with the object behind the  said Rule. It held that Rule applied not only in the case  of the retirement contemplated by Rule 19 but also to cases  of retirement of employees on attaining the age of superannuation. The court observed that it might happen that the irregularities  of misfeasance  of an employee could not be detected well before his retirement so as to initiate and complete disciplinary  enquiry in the matter and again there might be a case where disciplinary enquiry was initiated but could  not  be  completed  before  the  delinquent  employee attained the  age of  superannuation. The  court noted  that there was  no provision  in the  Service Rules  of the  Bank providing for  extension of service of an employee to enable the authorities to complete the disciplinary enquiry against him which  power was  available under the Government Service Rules. The court said even if an enquiry was pending against an employee  there was  nothing to stop him from retiring on his attaining  the age  of superannuation. The enquiry could not continue after his retirement. The court was, therefore, of the opinion that it was for that reason that the Bank had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

reserved to  itself the  power to  sanction  the  pensionary benefits under  Rule 11  and if there was nothing wrong with the service  of  an  employee  throughout,  the  Bank  would naturally sanction  the pension, but if there was sufficient material disclosing  grave irregularities on the part of the employee, the  Bank  might  be  well  within  its  power  in refusing  to   sanction  the   pensionary  benefits,  or  in sanctioning them  only partly.  The learned  single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court then went on to hold as under:      "Of course,  such a decision has to      be   arrived   at   fairly,   which      necessarily means  after holding an      enquiry, giving  a fair opportunity      to the  concerned officer to defend      himself  against   the  accusation.      Such an  enquiry  would  not  be  a      ‘disciplinary enquiry’  within  the      ordinary meaning  of the  term, but      an enquiry confined to the purposes      of the  rules,  viz.,  whether  the      employee  should   be  granted  any      pensionary benefits;  and if so, to      what extent?  Such an  enquiry  can      also be  made after  the retirement      (of an  employee; and  particularly      in   cases    of   retirement)   on      attaining      the      age      of      superannuation,    probably    such      enquiries will have to be conducted      only after retirement."      The court,  therefore, gave  direction as  to  how  the enquiry was to be conducted the officer so as to entitle him the pensionary  benefits if he was exonerated. We are afraid that this  view of the Andhra High Court does not commend to us. By  giving such  an interpretation to Rule 11 the Andhra Pradesh  High   Court  has,  in  effect,  lent  validity  to disciplinary proceeding  against an  employee even after his superannuation for  which no  provision  existed  either  in Pension Rules  or in  the Service  Rules and  when the  High Court had  itself observed that an enquiry even if initiated during the  service period  of the  employee  could  not  be continued after his retirement on superannuation.      Rule 10 of the Pension Rules provides for forfeiture of all claims  for pension  if an  employee is  dismissed  from service of  the Bank  for wilful neglect or fraud. This rule specifically provides  for forfeiture  of  the  pension.  It could not  therefore be  said that  under Rule  11 again the pension of an employee could be withheld on these or similar grounds. In  our view  last sentence  of Rule  11 which says that  an  employee  who  shall  leave  the  service  without sanction of  the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank  shall forfeit  all claims  for pension  would  not include the holding of the employee guilty of wilful neglect or fraud which is envisaged in Rule 10. Rule 11 particularly the latter portion of this Rule would be applicable where an employee leaves  the service of the Bank before reaching the age of  superannuation or  the Bank  requires him  to retire before that date on his becoming incapacitated or otherwise. It  cannot   be  said  that  an  employee  retires  only  on superannuation and  there is  no  other  circumstance  under which an  employee can  retire. Retirement on superannuation is  not  the  only  mode  of  retirement  known  to  service jurisprudence. There  can be other types of retirements like premature retirement,  either compulsory  or  voluntary.  It would be  in the case of a premature retirement or any other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

contingency when  an employee leaves the service of the Bank before  he   superannuates  that   Rule  11   would   become applicable. Retirement on superannuation is automatic as per Rule 26  of the Service Rules. No further action on the part of the  Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank would be  required in  such a  case and  Rule 11 will not be applicable.      Right to  receive pension  is a right to property under Rule 7  of the  Pension Rules  when it says that no employee shall have  any right of property in the pension fund beyond the amount of his contribution to the pension section of the fund with  interest accrued  thereon. That  being so Rule 11 cannot be  interpreted to  mean that  claim to pension of an employee on  superannuation can  be defeated  by the Bank by merely withholding sanction of retirement. For about 8 years when these  two matters were pending in the Delhi High Court the Bank  did not  take any  decision in terms of Rule 11 to sanction retirement  of  the  respondents.  The  Bank  never communicated  to   the  respondents  that  it  had  withheld sanction to  their  retirement  or  did  not  approve  their service. It  is only during the course of proceedings in the High Court  that the  Bank came  up with  the plea  that  it wanted to  have  the  allegations  against  the  respondents enquired into.  To us  the language  of the  Rule 11 appears quite explicit.  No sanction  is required  from the  Bank to leave the  service on  reaching the age of superannuation as provided in  Rule 26  of the  Service  Rules  applicable  to Assistants. Rule  26 of  the Service  Rules clearly mandates the retirement  of an  employee on  his attaining the age of superannuation and there cannot be two opinions on that. We, therefore, hold  that Rule 11 has no application in the case of the  respondents who  retired on  attaining  the  age  of superannuation. We  cannot agree  with the  plea of the Bank that  sanctioning   of  retirement  must  be  understood  as sanctioning of  service which  in term must be understood as approval of  service. Proceeding in the garb of disciplinary proceedings cannot be permitted after an employee has ceased to be  in the  service of  the Bank  as Service Rules do not provide for  continuation of  disciplinary proceedings after the date of superannuation. Sanction of the Bank is required only if the retirement of an employee is by any other method except superannuation.  We do not think that the decision of the Andhra  Pradesh High  Court in T. Narsiah vs. State Bank of India  & Ors.  and that  of the Bombay High Court in M/s. J.K. Kulkarni  vs. State  Bank of  India have laid down good law.      Coming to Rule 20 of the Employees’ Provident Fund Rule which we have quoted above, this Rule will become applicable only if an employee retiring from the service of the Bank is under a  liability incurred by him to the Bank. In that case trustees administering  the Provident  Fund can  pay to  the Bank out of the balance to the credit of the employee in the Fund any  amount due  by him  to the  Bank. We have not been told if  any liability  was  incurred  by  any  of  the  two respondents and if so what were the amounts. In this view of the matter we do not think it is necessary for us to go into the question  as to  whether the  term "liability  incurred" means only  such liability  as is  either  not  disputed  or established by  due process,  Can it  be said that this term would also  include any liability that may be alleged by the Bank? In  any case  the Bank  should at  least  prima  facie established that  any liability  has been  incurred  by  the employee for which it can lay claim to the Provident Fund of the employee.  We cannot accept the proposition on behalf of the Bank that the trustees should be allowed to withhold the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

Provident Fund due till they have had an opportunity to have established and  determined the amount, if any, due from the respondents to  the Bank.  We  are  of  the  view  that  the respondents are  entitled to  the Provident Fund due to them in accordance  with the Provident Fund Rules as it cannot be said that they incurred any liability.      By way  of interim  orders passed  by the High Court as well as  by this  Court the  amounts due towards pension and provident fund  have since  been paid  to  the  respondents. There is  no dispute  on that. It has, however, urged by Mr. Dogra, learned counsel for the Bank that the High Court went wrong in  directing payment  of a  sum equivalent  to 9% per annum by  way of damages for wrongly withholding the pension amount and  also the  Provident Fund amount. We think it was not a  case where  it could  be said  that the  amounts were wrongly withheld  by the  Bank and  rather decisions  of the Andhra Pradesh  High Court  and Bombay  High Court supported the view  which was  advanced  by  the  Bank.  Moreover  the Pension Fund and the Provident Fund carry interest and these amounts with  interest have been paid to the respondents. We would,  therefore,  delete  the  award  of  damages  to  the respondents as  mentioned in  paras 2 and 3 of the operative portion of the impugned judgment which we have reproduced in the beginning of this judgment.      To this  extend only  the appeals  are  partly  allowed which are  otherwise dismissed. As pointed out earlier costs are nevertheless payable by the Bank to the respondents.