Bank of India Vs. Indu Rajagopalan & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6959 of 1997
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 7037-7112/97, 7113-7114/97, 7382-7384/97, 859/98, 1730/98 & Civil Appeal 2475/2000 @ SLP (C) 7639/99
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 7037-7112/97, 7113-7114/97, 7382-7384/97, 859/98, 1730/98 & Civil Appeal 2475/2000 @ SLP (C) 7639/99
Petitioner: Bank of India
Respondent: Indu Rajagopalan & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6959 of 1997
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 7037-7112/97, 7113-7114/97, 7382-7384/97, 859/98, 1730/98 & Civil Appeal 2475/2000 @ SLP (C) 7639/99
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 7037-7112/97, 7113-7114/97, 7382-7384/97, 859/98, 1730/98 & Civil Appeal 2475/2000 @ SLP (C) 7639/99
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 04, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Constitution
Article 136 – Employees retiring under Voluntary Retirement Scheme – Comprehensive Pension Scheme framed w.e.f. 1.11.93 – Uniformly applied even to employees retiring voluntarily – Applicability to those retiring between 1.1.86 to 31.10.93 – No significant financial burden – Strength of retired employees in that period very small – No distinction. Held that High Court has rightly given direction to apply regulation to retired employees. No interference.
(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted in SLP (C) 7639/99
2. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellants at length and having gone through the judgments of the learned Single Judge and of the Division Bench of the High Court, we are satisfied that the view taken by the High Court is fair and reasonable.
3. All that has happened is in such of the Banks where a Scheme for Voluntary Retirement was available, certain employees retired under that Scheme. Now a Comprehensive Pension Scheme has been framed which came into force w.e.f. 1.11.93 and applicable uniformly to all Bank employees which provides for voluntary retirement as well. The applicability of these Rules to those employees who have voluntarily retired w.e.f. 1.1.86 to 31.10.93 is raised in these matters. It is not possible for Shri V.R. Reddy, learned senior Counsel who appears for the appellants to point out that there is any significant financial or other burden or difference so far as those who had voluntarily retired and those who had ordinarily retired. In that event where there is no distinction, the authorities having sought to make a distinction and not applied the regulations framed subsequent to their retirement, the High Court has given appropriate directions. We also notice that the number of employees who have retired in this manner is also very small. Therefore, we think no interference is called for in these appeals. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted in SLP (C) 7639/99
2. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellants at length and having gone through the judgments of the learned Single Judge and of the Division Bench of the High Court, we are satisfied that the view taken by the High Court is fair and reasonable.
3. All that has happened is in such of the Banks where a Scheme for Voluntary Retirement was available, certain employees retired under that Scheme. Now a Comprehensive Pension Scheme has been framed which came into force w.e.f. 1.11.93 and applicable uniformly to all Bank employees which provides for voluntary retirement as well. The applicability of these Rules to those employees who have voluntarily retired w.e.f. 1.1.86 to 31.10.93 is raised in these matters. It is not possible for Shri V.R. Reddy, learned senior Counsel who appears for the appellants to point out that there is any significant financial or other burden or difference so far as those who had voluntarily retired and those who had ordinarily retired. In that event where there is no distinction, the authorities having sought to make a distinction and not applied the regulations framed subsequent to their retirement, the High Court has given appropriate directions. We also notice that the number of employees who have retired in this manner is also very small. Therefore, we think no interference is called for in these appeals. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
