SC Judgment in Bank of Baroda case Diary No. 27257/20111 reserved on 13.02.2018

Bank Pensioner

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Officers retired between 01/04/1998 and 31/10/2002 Supreme Court Judgement in Bank of Baroda case

Supreme court of India has delivered judgement favouring Bank Officers on 13th Feb 2018 , ordering to fix pension according to pension rules and pay arrears along with 9% interest within four months of the date of order. For the Officers retired between 01/04/1998 and 31/10/2002 basic  pension was fixed by merging DA upto 1610 points instead of 1684 points. The pension was re fixed   w.e.f. from 01/05/2005 by merging DA upto 1684 points. But it was not revised from date of retirement,Now detailed judgement is delivered by SC. 

Following are extracts from  Supreme court Judgement

"First we come to the rigour of the Regulations. The Regulations have statutory force, having been framed in exercise of the powers under Section 19(2)(f) of the Act

of 1970 and are binding. They could not have been supplanted by any executive fiat or order or Joint Note, which has no statutory basis. The Joint Note of the officers also had no statutory force behind it and could not have obliterated any of the provisions of Act of 1970 or the existing Regulations. Thus, Joint Notes could, not have taken away the rights that were available under the Pension Regulations of 1995 to the Officer."

"Thus, in our opinion, the Regulations which were in force till 2003, would apply with full force and as a matter of fact, the amendments made in it by addition of Explanation (c) in Regulation 2(s) did not have the effect of amending the Regulations relating to pension, as contained in Regulation 38 read with Regulations 2(d) and 35 of the Regulations of 1995. Even otherwise, if it had the effect of amending the pay and perks 'average emoluments', as specified in Regulation 2(d), it could not

have operated retrospectively and taken away accrued rights. Otherwise also, it would have been arbitrary exercise of power. Besides, there was no binding statutory force of the so called Joint Note of the Officers' Association, as admittedly, to Officers' Association even the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act were not applicable and joint note had no statutory support, and it

was not open to forgo the benefits available under the Regulations to those officers who have retired from 1.4.1998 till December 1999 and thereafter, and to deprive them of the benefits of the Regulations.Thus, by the Joint Note that has been relied upon, no estoppel said to have been created. There is no estoppel as against the enforcement of statutory provisions. The Joint Note had

no force of law and could not have been against the spirit of the statutory Regulations and the basic service conditions, as envisaged under the Regulations framed under the Act of 1970. They could not have been tinkered with in an arbitrary manner, as has been laid down by this Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited & Anr. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr., (1986) 3 SCC 156 & Delhi Transport Corporation vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor

Congress, (1991) Supp.1 SCC 600. "

"Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305. It was observed in the context of pension scheme that was non-contributory in character that the benefit, which was given under the scheme, was prospective. In all cases wherever they retire, they would be governed by the liberalized pension scheme, because the scheme was a

scheme for payment of the pension governed by 1972 Rules. The date of retirement would be the relevant date. The revised scheme would be operative from the date mentioned in the scheme. It was also not a case of taking away the benefit that had accrued with retrospective effect or

taking away of the vested or accrued rights. Thus, the decision has no application, rather the spirit of the decision runs counter to and fails to buttress the submissions raised on behalf of the banks.

33. The only purpose of the addition of Explanation (c) to Regulation 2(s), was to take away the actual computation of the pension on the basis of the salary,which was drawn in the preceding ten months. Thus, we have no hesitation to strike it down being arbitrary and repugnant to other provisions/Regulations namely 2(d), 38(1)(2) and 35. The Explanation (c) to Regulation 2(s)

is hereby struck down, as it could not have been enacted retrospectively to take away accrued rights. Even otherwise also it is held to be arbitrary and irrational. More so, in view of the fact that only by way of a temporary measure, that discrimination was created and the Explanation was deleted with effect from 1.5.2005.

34. Thus, we set aside the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi and affirm that of High Courts of Karnataka at Bangalore and the High Court of Madras. The appeals filed by the Banks are dismissed and the appeal filed by the Association is allowed.Resultantly, let the amount

which was due and payable be paid with 9% interest, be calculated and paid within four months from today. "

Click below link for full judgment:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IxCJrmniacY657n7RBN1B8srLDk0EgmV/view?usp=sharing