Matter of resignees
332 views
Skip to first unread message
unmesh bhatt
Jun 3, 2024, 12:45:10 AMJun 3
to MOHAN P, Pathak K, bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Dear Mohan Sir,
Request you to kindly take up the matter for resolution of ex-bank employees at appropriate level and jointly with all unions/ as you may feel appropriate.
Will request your views as well.
Thanks and with kind regards,
Unmesh Bhatt
Yes, this has to be taken up. I feel it’s prime responsibility of Unions for all banks.
If unions say no, then collectively this has to be done.
Banks are outrightly rejecting the applications.As on the PNB and Punjab and Sind Bank rejected the application stating that you have no service of 20 years.
Hence we need to plan further course of action. Each one should give his opinion. In absence of response from the members I will have drop the idea.
Dear Sir,
Now almost 7 banks have issued the circular for the resignees to join Pension Scheme & stipulating 20 years of service to opt for.
Though the resignees with service of 19 years 6 months and more period are eligible to be concluded as 20 years of service but Banks are outrightly rejecting the applications.
The Regulation 18 of BEPR 1995 states as under:-
“18. Broken period of service of less than one year. If the period of service if an employee includes broken period of service less than one year, then if such broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as on year and if such broken period is six months or less, it shall be ignored”.
This clause was amended after the IBA communication to the Bank dated 14/08/1999 and following proviso was added to it as under:-
“Provided that provisions of this regulation shall not apply for determining the minimum service required to make an employee eligible for pension.”;
This proviso will not be applicable to those resigned before the date 14/08/1999 or the exact date of amendment by the Bank.
The members resigned after the amendment can have the benefit of following judgement.
The Regulation -18 of Indian Bank Employees Pension Regulation 1995 was subject matter of interpretation before the Division Bench of Madras High Court in “Venkataramani N Vs. Indian Bank [WP-14744-2003] on 4th July 2005 by setting aside the order of Single Judge held that petitioner Venkataramani N having completed 15 years of service, according to provision of Regulation 18, he is entitled for pension & order to pay pension with interest from the date of retirement.
Indian Bank escalated the issue before Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition No.19062 of 2005 where leave was granted and Special Leave Petition No.19062 of 2005 was converted to Civil Appeal 3989 of 2007. Finally, Apex Court by dismissing the civil appeal of the Bank on 30/08/2007 ordered as under: -
“13. It may be true that various provisions of the Regulations as for example Regulations 16, 17, 19, 23, etc. provided for qualifying service. Regulation 18 is not controlled by any of the said provisions. It does not brook any restrictive interpretation. It only provides for a rule of measurement. An employee, as noticed hereinbefore, was entitled to pension provided he has completed the specified period of service. How such a period of service would be computed is a matter which is governed by the statute. It is one thing to say that a statute provides for completion of fifteen years of minimum service, but if a provision provides for measurement of the period, the same cannot be lost sight of. Provision of the Regulations which are beneficial in nature, in our opinion, should be construed liberally.
18. For the reasons aforementioned, no case has been made out for interference of the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs. 25,000/-.”
The ratio laid down in Indian Bank and another vs. N. Venkatramani (2007) 10 SCC 609 has been affirmed by honourable Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal 172 of 2010 in the matter of State Bank of Patiala vs. Pritam Sing Bedi dismissing the Civil Appeal filed by the Bank on 07/07/2014 [2014 (13) SCC 474] held that: -
23. It has not been disputed by appellant-Bank that the respondents in all the appeals have completed much more than 19 years 6 months of service in the Bank. For example, respondent No.1-Prakash Chand in C.A. No.173 of 2010 had joined the Bank on 4th May, 1981 and relieved on 31st March, 2001. Thus, he had completed 19 years, 10 months and 28 days of qualifying service on the date of relieving from service.
24. Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 provides that if broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year. Therefore, all the respondents-writ petitioners having completed more than 19 years and 6 months of service in the Bank, they are to be treated to have completed 20 years of service.
25. In view of the aforesaid fact, the appellant-Bank cannot derive the benefit of the decision of this Court in Bank of Baroda as the employees who were parties before the Court in the said case had not completed 20 years of service. As per the decision of this Court in Bank of India, the respondent’s writ petitioners having completed 20 years of service are entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29.
As the provisions of Bank Employees Pension Regulation 1995 are uniform in Public Sector Banks and as such law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of interpretation of Regulation 18, in the above judgments is binding on the Bank.
Very recently, Himachal Pradesh high court in the matter of Uco Bank Vs ChhamanSing on 20/03/2024 rightly interepreting the regulation 18, directed the Bank to release the Pension to employee and held that :-
3(iv) In view of above, there is no escape from the conclusion that in terms of substantive provision of Regulation No.18, service rendered by the respondent has to be reckoned as 10 years on the date of his retirement. The respondent, thus, becomes eligible for grant of pension under Regular No.14.
3(v) A contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that the proviso to Rule 18 takes away the right of the employee for counting the broken period of service towards his total service required for pension; That proviso to Regulation No.18 debars counting such broken period of service for pension.
It is well settled that a proviso cannot override or supplant the substantive provision. The proviso cannot take away or nullify the right conferred by the substantive provision'
In the instant case, substantive provision of Regulation No.18 of UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, provides a method for counting broken periods of service of an employee. In terms whereof service of less than a year but more than 6 months is to be rounded off as one completed year. This benefit of computation of service accorded to an employee under substantive provision of Regulation No.18 cannot be watered down by the proviso to Regulation No.18.
In view of clear language & intent of substantive provision of Regulation No.18, appellant Bank cannot be permitted to take shelter behind proviso to this regulation to contend that such computation of service shall not be applied for determining eligibility for pension.
A right/benefit vested/bestowed in the employee under substantive provision of Regulation cannot be taken away by itsproviso. The respondent (writ petitioner) who admittedly has 9 years 10 months & 5 days of service to this credit certainly qualifies for pension as his total service in terms of substantive provision of Regulation No.18 becomes 9+1=10 years.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if
any, shall also stand disposed of".
In view of the above, WE have served the Bank for 19 years 6 months and 8 days and entitled for the benefit of regulation 18 for computing my service as 20 years.
Unfortunately Banks are not accepting this view, we need to decide the line of action.
Thanks & Regards
Pathak R K
9373053695
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Regulation -18" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to regulation--1...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/regulation--18/bd2e8492-3d99-4f2b-8da3-bc41560166b5n%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Sent from my iPhone
Request you to kindly take up the matter for resolution of ex-bank employees at appropriate level and jointly with all unions/ as you may feel appropriate.
Will request your views as well.
Thanks and with kind regards,
Unmesh Bhatt
Yes, this has to be taken up. I feel it’s prime responsibility of Unions for all banks.
If unions say no, then collectively this has to be done.
Banks are outrightly rejecting the applications.As on the PNB and Punjab and Sind Bank rejected the application stating that you have no service of 20 years.
Hence we need to plan further course of action. Each one should give his opinion. In absence of response from the members I will have drop the idea.
Dear Sir,
Now almost 7 banks have issued the circular for the resignees to join Pension Scheme & stipulating 20 years of service to opt for.
Though the resignees with service of 19 years 6 months and more period are eligible to be concluded as 20 years of service but Banks are outrightly rejecting the applications.
The Regulation 18 of BEPR 1995 states as under:-
“18. Broken period of service of less than one year. If the period of service if an employee includes broken period of service less than one year, then if such broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as on year and if such broken period is six months or less, it shall be ignored”.
This clause was amended after the IBA communication to the Bank dated 14/08/1999 and following proviso was added to it as under:-
“Provided that provisions of this regulation shall not apply for determining the minimum service required to make an employee eligible for pension.”;
This proviso will not be applicable to those resigned before the date 14/08/1999 or the exact date of amendment by the Bank.
The members resigned after the amendment can have the benefit of following judgement.
The Regulation -18 of Indian Bank Employees Pension Regulation 1995 was subject matter of interpretation before the Division Bench of Madras High Court in “Venkataramani N Vs. Indian Bank [WP-14744-2003] on 4th July 2005 by setting aside the order of Single Judge held that petitioner Venkataramani N having completed 15 years of service, according to provision of Regulation 18, he is entitled for pension & order to pay pension with interest from the date of retirement.
Indian Bank escalated the issue before Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition No.19062 of 2005 where leave was granted and Special Leave Petition No.19062 of 2005 was converted to Civil Appeal 3989 of 2007. Finally, Apex Court by dismissing the civil appeal of the Bank on 30/08/2007 ordered as under: -
“13. It may be true that various provisions of the Regulations as for example Regulations 16, 17, 19, 23, etc. provided for qualifying service. Regulation 18 is not controlled by any of the said provisions. It does not brook any restrictive interpretation. It only provides for a rule of measurement. An employee, as noticed hereinbefore, was entitled to pension provided he has completed the specified period of service. How such a period of service would be computed is a matter which is governed by the statute. It is one thing to say that a statute provides for completion of fifteen years of minimum service, but if a provision provides for measurement of the period, the same cannot be lost sight of. Provision of the Regulations which are beneficial in nature, in our opinion, should be construed liberally.
18. For the reasons aforementioned, no case has been made out for interference of the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs. 25,000/-.”
The ratio laid down in Indian Bank and another vs. N. Venkatramani (2007) 10 SCC 609 has been affirmed by honourable Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal 172 of 2010 in the matter of State Bank of Patiala vs. Pritam Sing Bedi dismissing the Civil Appeal filed by the Bank on 07/07/2014 [2014 (13) SCC 474] held that: -
23. It has not been disputed by appellant-Bank that the respondents in all the appeals have completed much more than 19 years 6 months of service in the Bank. For example, respondent No.1-Prakash Chand in C.A. No.173 of 2010 had joined the Bank on 4th May, 1981 and relieved on 31st March, 2001. Thus, he had completed 19 years, 10 months and 28 days of qualifying service on the date of relieving from service.
24. Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 provides that if broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year. Therefore, all the respondents-writ petitioners having completed more than 19 years and 6 months of service in the Bank, they are to be treated to have completed 20 years of service.
25. In view of the aforesaid fact, the appellant-Bank cannot derive the benefit of the decision of this Court in Bank of Baroda as the employees who were parties before the Court in the said case had not completed 20 years of service. As per the decision of this Court in Bank of India, the respondent’s writ petitioners having completed 20 years of service are entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29.
As the provisions of Bank Employees Pension Regulation 1995 are uniform in Public Sector Banks and as such law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of interpretation of Regulation 18, in the above judgments is binding on the Bank.
Very recently, Himachal Pradesh high court in the matter of Uco Bank Vs ChhamanSing on 20/03/2024 rightly interepreting the regulation 18, directed the Bank to release the Pension to employee and held that :-
3(iv) In view of above, there is no escape from the conclusion that in terms of substantive provision of Regulation No.18, service rendered by the respondent has to be reckoned as 10 years on the date of his retirement. The respondent, thus, becomes eligible for grant of pension under Regular No.14.
3(v) A contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is that the proviso to Rule 18 takes away the right of the employee for counting the broken period of service towards his total service required for pension; That proviso to Regulation No.18 debars counting such broken period of service for pension.
It is well settled that a proviso cannot override or supplant the substantive provision. The proviso cannot take away or nullify the right conferred by the substantive provision'
In the instant case, substantive provision of Regulation No.18 of UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, provides a method for counting broken periods of service of an employee. In terms whereof service of less than a year but more than 6 months is to be rounded off as one completed year. This benefit of computation of service accorded to an employee under substantive provision of Regulation No.18 cannot be watered down by the proviso to Regulation No.18.
In view of clear language & intent of substantive provision of Regulation No.18, appellant Bank cannot be permitted to take shelter behind proviso to this regulation to contend that such computation of service shall not be applied for determining eligibility for pension.
A right/benefit vested/bestowed in the employee under substantive provision of Regulation cannot be taken away by itsproviso. The respondent (writ petitioner) who admittedly has 9 years 10 months & 5 days of service to this credit certainly qualifies for pension as his total service in terms of substantive provision of Regulation No.18 becomes 9+1=10 years.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if
any, shall also stand disposed of".
In view of the above, WE have served the Bank for 19 years 6 months and 8 days and entitled for the benefit of regulation 18 for computing my service as 20 years.
Unfortunately Banks are not accepting this view, we need to decide the line of action.
Thanks & Regards
Pathak R K
9373053695
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Regulation -18" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to regulation--1...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/regulation--18/bd2e8492-3d99-4f2b-8da3-bc41560166b5n%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Sent from my iPhone
Arun Sharma
Jun 4, 2024, 12:59:39 AMJun 4
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Mr. Bhatt,
Banks must consider payment of pension for those employees who have served 19 years and more than 6 months to the nearest year of service completion.
And I fully agree with you that in united way a representation should be submitted at the appropriate levels to meet this genuine demand.
I have only 17 years, 11 months and 14 days not even close to 20 years as decided by IBA and AIBEA.
AK
--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/EC8DEC28-1215-40C1-90AF-304EDEB16D5A%40gmail.com.
Vijay Singh
Jun 4, 2024, 12:59:39 AMJun 4
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Pathak sir 🙏
Banks and IBA circular says that employees must to deposit BCF amt and next month bank start pension to resignees,
My query is that in case,
when bank not paid BCF to employees at the time of resignation because employees is pension optee.
From which date bank will start pension
1=date on employees exit from bank
Or
2=date on employees applying for pension in bank now
--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/EC8DEC28-1215-40C1-90AF-304EDEB16D5A%40gmail.com.
R.K. Pathak
Jun 4, 2024, 1:29:33 AMJun 4
to Bankpensioner Google
From the date when employees bring this fact to the notice of the Bank that BCF is retained by the bank and question of refund of BCF doesn't arise.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAPPDPsRVAvH-GffrAN%3DjWtpgp8Du2CXZH32-UDnsD5AuqudC5Q%40mail.gmail.com.
kalyanam rajagopal
Jun 6, 2024, 6:43:50 AMJun 6
to bankpensioner
Where is the question of option to join the pension scheme as per the terms of Joint Note dated 08,03.2024, when you are already in the pension scheme. This option is meant for those remained in the PF and were not given option to join the pension scheme as their exit was styled resignation.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages