Subject: Our SLP NO.4843-45/2014 CA nos, 3762-64/2014
Dear Sirs,
The captioned matters were taken up yesterday as Item 110 by a bench comprising of HMJ Adarsh Kumar Goel and HMJ P. C. Pant of the Supreme Court of India.
Mr. Venkatramani, Senior Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Petitioners in the Canara Bank matter, which was the lead matter. Mr. Rao appeared on behalf of the Petitioners in the Bank of Baroda matter. Some other Senior Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioners in other matters. Mr. Sukumar Pattajoshi, Senior Advocate, appeared on behalf of Bank of Baroda. Other banks were represented by their respective counsel.
At the outset, the Hon'ble Court was not inclined to entertain the appeals. However, seeing merit in the contentions made by Mr. Venkatramani, the Hon'ble Court heard the matters for about 2 hours.
Mr. Venkatramani submitted that the retirees formed one class and that inflation affected everyone equally immaterial of the date of retirement. He read out the Single Judge's order and submitted that it had been rightly decided. Mr. Rao submitted that judgments in the Nakara case and S. S. Dewan case were clear that a mere change in formulae or upward revision of pension, which is the case in the present case, does not mean that it is a new scheme and application of an arbitrary cut off date would amount to discrimination and violation of Article 14. He further submitted that there was nothing on the face of the 8th Bipartite Settlement Agreement to specifically exclude the Petitioners from 100% neutralization and hence should be granted.
Counsels for the Banks submitted that the Nakara case would not apply in the present facts as it was a contributory pension fund and more importantly the change in formulae was on account of a subsequent settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act which only applied to existing employees.
In response, Mr. Venkatramani pointed out the fact that 100% neutralization was granted to even those who retired from 01.11.2002 to June 2005. Mr. Venkatramani also handed over the Calcutta High Court Judgment. Counsel for the Bank submitted that an SLP was being filed during the course of the day against the said Judgment.
The Hon'ble Court orally stated that the captioned Appeals would be dismissed and the view of the Madras HC would be affirmed. Reasons will be evident from the final Judgment which will be passed by the Court shortly.
I will forward the final Judgment and Order to you as and when it is made available.
Should you require any clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Harsha
K. Harshavardhan
Advocate
Z-24, Lower Ground Floor,
Hauz Khas,
New Delhi - 110 016
Mob: + 91 9958400199
Office: 011 40583933, 40593933
Dear Sirs,
The captioned matters were taken up yesterday as Item 110 by a bench comprising of HMJ Adarsh Kumar Goel and HMJ P. C. Pant of the Supreme Court of India.
Mr. Venkatramani, Senior Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Petitioners in the Canara Bank matter, which was the lead matter. Mr. Rao appeared on behalf of the Petitioners in the Bank of Baroda matter. Some other Senior Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioners in other matters. Mr. Sukumar Pattajoshi, Senior Advocate, appeared on behalf of Bank of Baroda. Other banks were represented by their respective counsel.
At the outset, the Hon'ble Court was not inclined to entertain the appeals. However, seeing merit in the contentions made by Mr. Venkatramani, the Hon'ble Court heard the matters for about 2 hours.
Mr. Venkatramani submitted that the retirees formed one class and that inflation affected everyone equally immaterial of the date of retirement. He read out the Single Judge's order and submitted that it had been rightly decided. Mr. Rao submitted that judgments in the Nakara case and S. S. Dewan case were clear that a mere change in formulae or upward revision of pension, which is the case in the present case, does not mean that it is a new scheme and application of an arbitrary cut off date would amount to discrimination and violation of Article 14. He further submitted that there was nothing on the face of the 8th Bipartite Settlement Agreement to specifically exclude the Petitioners from 100% neutralization and hence should be granted.
Counsels for the Banks submitted that the Nakara case would not apply in the present facts as it was a contributory pension fund and more importantly the change in formulae was on account of a subsequent settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act which only applied to existing employees.
In response, Mr. Venkatramani pointed out the fact that 100% neutralization was granted to even those who retired from 01.11.2002 to June 2005. Mr. Venkatramani also handed over the Calcutta High Court Judgment. Counsel for the Bank submitted that an SLP was being filed during the course of the day against the said Judgment.
The Hon'ble Court orally stated that the captioned Appeals would be dismissed and the view of the Madras HC would be affirmed. Reasons will be evident from the final Judgment which will be passed by the Court shortly.
I will forward the final Judgment and Order to you as and when it is made available.
Should you require any clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Harsha
K. Harshavardhan
Advocate
Z-24, Lower Ground Floor,
Hauz Khas,
New Delhi - 110 016
Mob: + 91 9958400199
Office: 011 40583933, 40593933
No comments:
Post a Comment