R.P. Sethi, C.J.
1. Denial of pensionary benefits under the Regulations framed by the appellant-Banks in the year 1995 to the respondent-employees who had voluntarily retired from service between 1-1-1986 and 31-10-1993, under the then prevalent Voluntary Retirement Scheme, brought them to the Court for the grant of appropriate relief. The respondent-employees prayed for quashing of Regulation 29 which allegedly deprived them the benefit of the Pension Scheme. It was submitted that the cut-off date prescribed under the aforesaid Regulations was arbitrary, discriminatory, ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 16(1), 21, 39(d) and 41 of the Constitution of India. They prayed that a declaration be issued holding them entitled to the grant of pension on voluntary retirement under the Regulations of 1995. It was submitted that a command be issued to the appellant-Banks to grant commutation amount of pension and to pay the same w.e.f. 1st November, 1993 with all consequential benefits including interest at the market rate for the period of delay in payment of pension and commutation amount to the petitioners. The pleas found favour with the learned Single Judge who vide his order impugned in this appeal directed the appellant-Banks to extend the benefit of Pension Scheme to the employee-petitioners after accepting their options given. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge the present appeals have been filed by Canara Bank, Union Bank of India, Indian Banks' Association, Syndicate Bank, Bank of India and the Union of India. It is alleged by the appellants that the order of the learned SingleJudge was contrary to law laid down by the Supreme Court and the result of the mis-appreciation of the various provisions of the Pension Regulations relied upon by the respondent-employees.
2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to take note of the facts and relevant provisions of the law in the case. It is not disputed that the respondent-employees were the officers of the appellant-Banks who had voluntarily retired from the services of the Banks between 1-1-1986 and 31-10-1993 under a statutory scheme of voluntary retirement framed by the Bank. None of the petitioners were entitled to grant of pension at the time they voluntarily retired. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970), the Board of Directors of appellants-Banks, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government made and framed the Pension Regulations in the year 1995. Earlier the employees of the Bank were governed by the Regulations framed in the year 1979, under which the normal age of superannuation was fixed at 60 years in respect of officers recruited or promoted as officers prior to 19-7-1969 and 58 years in respect of officers recruited or promoted on or after 19-7-1969. The Regulations permitted the Board of Directors of the Banks to frame a rule or scheme permitting voluntary retirement prematurely.
Acting under the aforesaid provisions the Board of Directors of one of the Banks viz., Canara Bank, in its meeting held on 30-3-1986 resolved that the officers who had completed 50 years of age or 25 years of total service as officer-employee or otherwise whichever was earlier may be permitted to voluntarily retire from the service of the Bank by extending the benefits which were available to officers retiring in the normal course on superannuation. It was also provided that the officer-employees retiring voluntarily were to obtain previous sanction of the Bank to accept any job in Private Sector as required and stipulated for officers retiring on superannuation. The aforesaid Bank issued Circular No. 160 of 1986 dated 24-4-1986 which stipulated the eligibility for voluntary retirement as 50 years of age or 25 years of total service. Three months notice was contemplated to be given for voluntary retirement provided the retiring employee was not involved in any case. Another circular dated 16-12-1991 was issued, by which the eligibility service was reduced from 25 to 20 years of total service. The respondent-employees applied for and were granted permission by the competent authority to voluntarily retire in terms of Regulation 19(1) of 1979 Regulations. It is submitted that the Trade Unions of the officer-employees of the Banks had been demanding that Pension Scheme be introduced for them providing pension as a retirement benefit in addition to Provident Fund and Gratuity. The demand is stated to have been boosted with the introduction of Pension Scheme in the RBI on 29-10-1990 which was made retrospective w.e.f. 1-1-1986. It was claimed that in the Banking Industry the service conditions are negotiated and settled between Trade Unions representing Bank Officers and Management of all the banks which authorise one of the members viz., Indian Banks' Association to negotiate andsettle the service conditions on their behalf. Based on the agreed conclusions reached in such bipartite meetings, statutory Regulations are framed by the Bank Managements under the provisions of the relevant Act. As a result of negotiations between the workmen unions, the Officers Association and the Indian Banks' Association, an agreement was signed between All India Bank Officers Confederation and the Indian Banks' Association on 29-10-1993 agreeing to introduce Pension Scheme in lieu of provident fund. The agreement provided that the Pension Scheme shall be retrospective in operation and would be applicable to the officers who had retired from the service on or after 1-1-1986.
Such employees were held entitled to be eligible to opt for Pension Scheme under the Regulations framed in consequence of the agreement arrived. It is claimed that a provision was made that officers who had retired between 1-1-1986 and 31-10-1993, if they opt for Pension Scheme, were bound to refund that part of provident fund which represented Bank contribution of the fund together with interest thereon drawn by them at the time of retirement with further interest of 6% p.a. from the date of the withdrawal to the date of refund. Pursuant to the settlement referred to above the Board of Directors of the Canara Bank adopted the draft Regulations provided by the Indian Banks' Association vide its letter dated 28-3-1994. The Board of Directors of the said appellant-Bank issued the circular dated 13-6-1994 calling for option of employees for Pension Scheme. On receiving the information, the officers who had retired from service of the Bank after 1-1-1986 started writing to the Bank to know the procedure for exercising the option for being entitled to the grant of pension. The said Bank found the petitioners eligible for pension and wrote them various communications calling upon them to be guided by item-B of the Circular for exercising option before 30-9- 1994. The Bank also advised the aforesaid retired employees that matter regarding their eligibility had been taken-up with the Indian Banks' Association and the position would be clarified on hearing from the said Association. The Association is stated to have clarified vide its letter dated 18-10-1994 that the officers who had retired voluntarily under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on or after 1-1-1986 were also eligible for pension. It is submitted that the Indian Banks' Association vide its letter dated 14-12-1995 intimated the Bank that the qualifying service of the employee who had voluntarily retired under the voluntary scheme, which was in vogue on or after 1-1-1986 shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such an employee shall not in any case exceed 33 years. The aforesaid Bank is stated to have intimated all the writ petitioners acceptance of their offers for Pension Scheme and directed them to undergo medical examination at their cost with the Bank's approved doctors for the purpose of commutation of pension. The concerned employees who had opted for the Pension Scheme underwent the medical examination.
The said Bank is stated to have calculated the eligible pension amount in respect of almost all the retired employees opting for pension. The commutation amount, the post commutation monthly pension andclass of the pension shown as premature retirement pension was also determined. It was also stated that the pension shall be payable w.e.f. 1-11-1993 as is evident from the communication dated 26-8-1995 (see Annexure-J). The Board of Directors of the appellant-Banks are stated to have adopted the pension Regulations in the year 1995. After the enforcement of the Regulations of the 1995 the writ petitioners were informed that as per the Regulations only such officers-employees who had voluntarily retired on or after 1-11-1993 were eligible for pension and as the writ petitioners had voluntarily retired prior to the aforesaid date they were not eligible for pension. The denial of pensionary benefits forced the concerned retired employees to make representations and thereafter file the writ petitions in this Court for the grant of appropriate relief.
3. In this factual background, the writ petitioners sought the relief as noted hereinbefore alleging usual pleas of the offending Regulation being discriminatory and violative of the fundamental rights as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. It was submitted that Regulation 19(1) of the Service Regulations and the Scheme of Voluntary Retirement framed by the Bank treated retirement on reaching the age of superannuation and voluntary retirement pursuant to the option exercised by the officials identical in all matters and categorically declared that officers wishing to retire on voluntary basis would be given all such benefits as were available to the officers retiring on completion of the age of retirement. It was contended that under the Pension Regulations, officers who had retired from the Bank after reaching the age of superannuation on or after 1-1-1986 having made eligible for pension, the officers like the petitioners who had retired on voluntary basis on or after 1-1-1986 could not be discriminated against and denied pension. It was further reiterated that after the said bank categorically held that all those who had retired from service of the Bank on or after 1-1-1986 either on reaching the age of superannuation or by virtue of the orders passed by the Bank, it was not fair on their part to deprive the writ petitioners the grant of pension which was claimed to be permissible under the Regulations. The action of the respondent was termed to be grossly unfair, unjust, manifestly arbitrary and capricious. According to the petitioners, by virtue of the retirement for any other reason specified in the Service Regulations, covered under Regulation 32(b), even the officers who had voluntarily retired by virtue of the scheme framed under the Service Regulations were entitled to receive pension in terms of the Pension Regulations and denial of pension by the banks was contrary to the settled position of law. All the officers who had retired after 1-1-1986 were termed to be of homogenous group and class which could not be divided further by resorting to micro classifications by arbitrarily fixing the eligibility criteria unrelated to the purpose of provision for pension. Having made a scheme for those who had retired on or after 1-1-1986 the banks were not justified to further divide such class of employees into separate groups and categorise with the object of denying pension to some of them. Such an action was termed to be arbitrary classification violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitutionof India. The respondents-employees claimed that they satisfied all the conditions of voluntary retirement prescribed under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations of 1995. It was contended that having regard to the consistent policy of the Reserve Bank of India and the Central Government as noted herein earlier, the action of the respondent-Banks in denying pension to the writ petitioners for the reasons that though they had retired after 1-1-1986 they were not entitled to the grant of pension only because they had voluntarily retired under the then prevalent scheme, was arbitrary, discriminatory and unjust. It was submitted that though the process of voluntary retirement commenced with the notice seeking voluntary retirement by the employee culminated in retirement only pursuant to the orders passed by the competent authority permitting voluntary retirement. Therefore, the interpretation placed by the appellant-Union of India on 'Premature retirement' was wholly arbitrary, capricious and untenable. The writ petitioners submitted that they were entitled to monthly provisional pension at a rate equal to the post commutation pension as calculated by the Bank and communicated to them vide Annexure-C produced in the writ petition.
4. The writ petitions were resisted on the grounds, inter alia, that the entire basis of the case of the employees regarding discrimination and violation of their alleged legal rights was mis- conceived and without any basis. They were alleged to be not entitled to pension having regard to the Pension Regulations framed by the Banks after due approval from the Central Government in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant Canara Bank submitted that the service conditions of the officer/employees of the bank did not entitle them to any pension. There existed a scheme for payment of Provident Fund, Gratuity, etc. under the Service Regulations. It was conceded that there was a long standing demand by the bank employees in the Banking Industry for grant of pension for which several discussions and negotiations were held at the industry levels for several years. Finally, the bank proposed to introduce Pension Scheme for all the employees and some proposals were put forth while introducing the Pension Scheme for officers which was not approved by the Reserve Bank of India or the Central Government. The Scheme circulated by the Bank vide Circular dated 30-6-1994 (Annexure-F) contained the proposed terms and conditions of the Pension Scheme subject to the bank obtaining necessary approval and sanction both from the Reserve Bank of India and the Central Government. The Bank also called for options to be exercised from officer-employees who had retired between 1-1-1986 and 31-10-1993. Many retirees of the aforesaid category gave their options. The Bank has also admitted to have tried to calculate the pension which a retiree was entitled to on the assumption that the scheme would have the approval of the Government. The Government, however, did not approve the said scheme and on the other hand was alleged to have made some modifications and finally after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and sanction from the Government of India, the Banks made Regulations known as the 'Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation 1995, which was publishedin the Gazette and came into force with effect from 29-9-1995. Under the Regulations all employees who were in the services of the Bank on or after 1-1-1986 but had retired before 1-11-1993 only were held eligible for the grant of pension. Prior to the coming into force of the Pension Regulation, the Bank had a scheme for voluntary retirement of its officer-employees which was claimed to be purely an administrative scheme and had been introduced after approval of the Board of Directors of the Bank. Neither the Reserve Bank of India nor the Central Government had sanctioned or approved the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by the Bank. Regulation 19(1) of the Service Regulations was not followed for formulating the scheme. According to the said scheme all officers who had completed 50 years of age or had put in 20 years of service were eligible to seek voluntary retirement subject to certain terms and conditions. They were eligible for Provident Fund, Gratuity, encashment of privilege leave as on the date of the retirement permissible to them subject to a maximum of 240 days on the basis of number of years of service put-in by them in the Bank. The officers were not eligible for any additional payment consequent upon their voluntary retirement. This Voluntary Retirement Scheme is claimed to be distinct from compulsory retirement. The Pension Scheme, upon the basis of which the relief was claimed by the voluntarily retired employees of the Bank had been introduced in the Banking Industry uniformly by all the 19 nationalised banks and 7 associated banks of the State Bank of India. It was submitted that if the writ petitioners' request for voluntary retirement pension is acceded to, it would result in pensionary benefit being extended to voluntarily retired officers in a few banks and officers with similar service in the bank being denied pension. The criteria for accepting voluntary retirement is stated to be different from bank to bank and there did not exist any uniformity. The submission of the representations for grant of pension by the employees like the writ petitioners was not denied by the appellants. According to the appellants the date of retirement of employees meant the last date of the month in which the employee attained the age of superannuation or the date on which he was retired by the Bank or the date on which the employee voluntarily retired. It was submitted that none of the writ petitioners had retired on the orders of the Bank in public interest nor were they retired on the basis of any specific service regulation or settlement. As there did not exist any Pension Scheme, once the writ petitioners had left the services of the banks prior to the introduction of the Pension Regulations, they were not entitled to the grant of relief which otherwise was not available to them under the Regulations. It was submitted that the writ petitioners had no right to claim coverage under the new Pension Scheme since they had already retired and had collected retirement benefits from the appellant-Banks. Persons voluntarily retired before a particular date formed a distinct group. According to the appellants there exist two distinct groups, viz., (1) comprising of those who voluntarily retired on their own choice in view of the then prevalent scheme, and (2) prematurely retired employees who were retired on the orders of the banks at their discretion in public interest or for any specific reasonsstated under the Regulations or settlement. It was submitted that in service jurisprudence there could not be any service rule which could satisfy each and every employee and its constitutionality was required to be judged by considering whether it was fair, reasonable and judicious to the majority of the employees and fortune of some individuals was not the touch-stone to determine the constitutionality of the allegedly offending provisions. The entering into of the settlement with the workmen-union under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act on 29-10-1993 was admitted. It was further submitted that a joint note was signed by the Officers' Association stating that the scheme was to be extended to all officers in the services of the bank as on 31-10-1993 and those who wish to opt for pension in response to the banks notice. It was denied that the joint note provided that all officers retiring voluntarily or otherwise after completing 10 years of service were eligible for pension. The issuance of Annexure-G by the petitioners was not disputed but it was submitted that the same was issued almost one year prior to the formulation of the Pension Scheme. It was admitted that the bank proposed draft regulations and circulated the same vide Annexure-F. It was submitted that it was mentioned therein that it would be considered for implementation only after following the procedure prescribed under the Banks Nationalisation Act and subject to final adoption after following the procedure, viz., after sanction or approval by the Reserve Bank of India and the Government of India. It was also admitted that the Indian Banks' Association took the view based on approved regulation that the officers who retired voluntarily from the service of the hank between 1-1-1986 and 31-10-1993 were eligible for pension under the regulation. It was also conceded that pursuant to the approved regulation circulated by the banks, several retirees had given an option for the grant of pension. The communication Annexure-J was stated to be only an ad-hoc communication issued by the bank informing the petitioners about the position subject to the provisions contained in the Pension Regulations finally to be adopted by the Bank. The concerned were categorically informed that the details provided in Annexure-J were only provisional and were subject to changes/corrections if any, after the final adoption of the Pension Regulations by the Bank. It was not denied that the Indian Banks' Association by the communication dated 9-10-1995 had given clarification about the Pension Scheme, which was based on the Pension Regulations finally adopted by the banks after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and the Central Government. It was submitted that having regard to the provisions of the Pension Regulations, the writ petitioners who voluntarily retired were not entitled to the pension under the regulations. The action of the respondent was claimed to be legal, valid and proper, which did not violate any of the fundamental right as was alleged by the employees.
5. Upon analysis of various provisions of the Regulations and in the light of admitted facts, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant-Banks could not make a distinction among the employees who retired under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and employees who retired otherwise. He found that if Regulation 29 was heldto be applicable only to the voluntarily retired employees under the Pension Regulations of 1995, the said Regulation would be ultra vires of the Constitution being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He held that:
'..the voluntary retirement which is found in the Regulations has to be taken as it applies to all the employees who have opted under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, as found in Regulation 3(1) of the Regulations. In my view a combined reading of Regulation 3 read with Regulation 34 clearly shows that the petitioners are also entitled to get the pensionary benefits which are extended by the Bank, even though it is for the first time. What the Bank wants is a distinction between the employees who are retired and the employees who sought voluntary retirement and retired. This distinction surely in my view is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India'.
He further held that the Regulations of 1995 were not in any way new retirement benefit and were framed by the Bank for giving the pensionary benefits to all the employees of the Bank either retired on attaining age of superannuation or retired under the scheme of voluntary retirement. The Bank was held to be not justified in fixing the cut-off date as 1-11-1993 to give the benefit of Pension Scheme to its employees. He further held:
'A reading of the Regulations clearly shows that the intention of the Regulations is not such. Since I take the view that even on a proper construction of the Regulations, the only conclusion which can be reached is that the petitioners are also entitled to the pensionary benefits extended under the Pension Scheme. In the view I have taken, I do not think it necessary for me to strike down Regulation 29 of the Regulations as asked for by the petitioners and to declare the same as invalid'.
6. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for parties it is necessary to have a glance into the various provisions of the Regulations sought to be interpreted by us in these appeals. Prior to the enforcement of Pension Regulations of 1995 the employees of the appellant were admittedly governed by Canara Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. Regulation 19(1) of the aforesaid Regulations provided:
'The age of retirement of an officer-employee shall be as determined by the Board in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time. Provided that the bank may, at its discretion, on review by the Special Committee as provided hereinafter in sub-regulation (2) retire an officer employee on or at any time after the completion of 55 years of age or on or at any time after the completion of 30 years of total service as an officer-employee or otherwise, whichever is earlier.
Provided further that before retiring an officer-employee, at least three months notice in writing or an amount equivalent to three months substantive salary/pay and allowance, shall be given tosuch officer employee: Provided also that nothing in this Regulation shall be deemed to preclude an officer employee from retiring earlier pursuant to the option exercised by him in accordance with the rules in the bank.
(emphasis supplied)
Explanation: An officer employee will retire on the last day of the month in which he completes his age of retirement'.
7. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced by the appellant Canara Bank in terms of Regulation 19(1) noted hereinabove. The salient features of the scheme were:
'Eligibility: Applicable only for those officers who have completed 50 years of age or 25 years of total service as officer-employee or otherwise, whichever is earlier.
Benefits: The following benefits shall be given to an officer who has been permitted to voluntarily retire by the competent authority.
(a) Encashment of privilege leave: Balance of PL as on the date of voluntary retirement to the credit of the officer subject to a maximum of 180 days will be permitted to be encashed.
(b) TA Freight etc.: TA freight and other expenses for the officer for self and other eligible family members as permissible in' the case of transfers will be permitted from the last place of work to the place where the officer intends to settle after retirement.
(c) Provident Fund Account: Balance in the PF Account of the officer as on the date of voluntary retirement will be paid.
(d) Gratuity: Subject to being eligible for gratuity in terms of Regulation 48 of CBSOR 1979, gratuity at the rate of one month's basic pay for every completed year of service subject to a maximum of 15 years and for service beyond 30 years at the rate of half months' basic pay for every completed year of service will be paid.
(3) Competent Authority:
(a) For officers upto and including Middle Management Grade Scale-III, General Manager - Personnel Wing.
(b) for all other officers : Board of Directors.
(4) Other Conditions:
(a) The officer desirous of seeking voluntary retirement should give advance notice of not less than 3 months.
(b) No charge-sheet/vigilance/CBI case etc. should be pending or contemplated against the officer.
(c) If any charge-sheet issued by the bank is pending for minor misconduct, the decision of the competent authority to permit voluntary retirement or not shall be final and binding.
(d) The voluntary retirement, if permitted to eligible officers by the competent authority is however, subject to the condition that no voluntarily retired officer shall without previous sanction of the competent authority (General Manager upto Scale-Ill and Board in the case of other officers) take up employment in a private concern within two years from the date of his retirement from the services of the hank.
(5) How to apply?
The eligible officers who desire to voluntarily retire may send an unconditional request letter addressed to the General Manager, Personnel Management Section, Personnel Wing, HO, through the Deputy General Manager, Staff Section (O), Circle Office concerned/Staff Administration Section, International Division, Bombay/Staff and Administration Section, Inspection Department Bangalore - HOSA Section, HO as the case may be. The decision of the competent authority will be communicated by circle office to the officer concerned'.
8. Vide Annexure-B dated 16-12-1991 the eligibility criteria for officer seeking voluntary retirement was relaxed and persons who had completed 50 years of age or 25 years of total service as an officer-employee or otherwise whichever was earlier were entitled to be eligible for the benefit of the aforesaid scheme. The agreement which was signed by AIBOG on pension issue with Indian Banks' Association on 29-10-1993 -- provided the package of superannuation scheme with benefits of pension, gratuity, emoluments in lieu of privilege leave. Officer in service as on 31-10-1993 had a choice between pension and contributory Provident Fund. The Indian Banks' Association issued a notice on its own behalf and on behalf of its member-banks who were party to the settlement pension signed on 29-10-1993 informing the employees (workmen and officers) who retired on or after 1-1-1986 and on or after 31-10-1993 that they may, if they so choose, apply in the format prescribed by the Bank for membership of the Pension Scheme. A reference to Annexure-F by which the Pension Scheme was introduced would show that the appellant- Bank had declared;
'By way of special dispensation to employees who retired on or after 1st January, 1986 but before 1st November, 1993 provided that such retired employees apply for it on the format prescribed by the bank and refund by the date decided by the bank, the bank's entire contribution to the Provident Fund including interest received with further simple interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of withdrawal of the Provident Fund amount till the date of refund'.
Pending sanction of the Central Government for final adoption of Pension Regulation and also for approval of Income-tax authorities for creation of pension fund trust of Bank, the appellant-Bank conveyed to its erstwhile employees the provisional pension calculation sheet vide Annexure-J. However, on 5-12-1995 the persons like the writ petitionerswere informed that in terms of the Pension Regulations of 1995 they were not eligible for pension.
9. The Pension Regulations of 1995 were enforced in the appellant Canara Bank w.e.f. 29-9-1995. The Regulation 2(t) defined 'pension' to include the basic pension and additional pension referred to in Chapter VI of these regulations. 'Pensioner' was defined to mean employee eligible for pension under the Regulation 2(u). 'Retired' was defined to include, deemed to have retired under clause (1) under the Regulation 2(x). 2(y) defines 'retirement' as cessation from Bank's service:
(a) on attaining the age of superannuation specified in Service Regulations or Settlements;
(b) on voluntary retirement in accordance with provisions contained in Regulation 29 of these Regulations;
(c) on premature retirement from the Bank before attaining the age of superannuation specified in Service Regulations or Settlement;'
Regulation 3 makes the Regulation applicable to employees including those who were in the service of the Bank on or after the 1st day of January, 1986 but had retired before the 1st day of November, 1993. Under Regulation 14 the employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service in the Bank on the date of his retirement or the date on which he is deemed to have retired is held qualified for pension. Regulation 29 which deals with the voluntary retirement provides:
PENSION ON VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT:
(1) On or after the 1st day of November, 1993 at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority retire from service:
Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who is on deputation or on study leave abroad unless after having been transferred or having returned to India he has resumed charge of the post in India and has served for a period of not less than one year:
Provided further that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking or company or institution or body, whether incorporated or not to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement:
Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who is deemed to have retired in accordance with clause (1) of Regulation 2.
(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-regulation (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority:
Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.
(3)(a) An employee referred to in sub-regulation (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons therefor;
(b) On receipt of a request under clause (a), the appointing authority may, subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (2), consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice or three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the notice of three months.
(4) An employee, who has elected to retire under this regulation and has given necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority:
Provided that the request for such withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement.
(5) The qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this regulation shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty-three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation.
(6) The pension of an employee retiring under this regulation shall be based on the average emoluments as defined under clause (d) of Regulation 2 of these Regulations and the increase, not exceeding given years in his qualifying service, shall not entitle him to any notional fixation of pay for the purpose of calculating his pension.
Regulation 32 deal with premature retirement pension, provides:
Premature Retirement Pension may be granted to an employee who:--
(a) has rendered minimum ten years of service;
(b) retires from service on account of orders of the Bank to retire prematurely in the public interest or for any other reason specified in service regulations or settlement, if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date.
Regulation 33 deal with Compulsory Retirement Pension, provides:
'(1) An employee compulsorily retired from service as a penalty on or after 1st day of November, 1993 in terms of Discipline and Appeal Regulations or settlement by the authority higher than the authority competent to impose such penalty may be granted pension at a rate not less than two-thirds and not more than full pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date.
(2) Whenever in the case of a bank employee the Competent Authority passes an order (whether original, appellate or in exercise of power of review) awarding a pension less than the full compensation pension admissible under these regulations, the Board of Directors shall be consulted before such order is passed.
(3) A pension granted or awarded under sub-regulation (1) or, as the case may be, under sub-regulation (2) shall not be less than the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy five per mensem'.
10. During the course of the arguments we were informed that the number of persons likely to be affected by the grant of pensionary benefits under the Regulations was about 300. In case of one of the appellant-Bank it was submitted that the grant of relief after commutation amount would impose an annual liability of 3.30 lakhs upon the Bank. In case of Bank of Baroda the number of retirees between 1-1- 1986 and 31-10-1993 is 101, amount of commutation Rs. 71.13 lakhs and pension to be paid per month would be Rs. 3.69 lakhs. Similarly, in case of Union Bank of India the number of employees is 21, the commutation amount Rs. 23.10 lakhs and pension per month Rs. 1.14 lakhs. In case of Bank of India the number of retirees is 38, the amount of commutation is Rs. 31.00 lakhs and pension per month is Rs. 1.75 lakhs. The number of retirees of Syndicate Bank is 20 out of which 14 opted for pension and the amount of commutation is stated to be Rs. 14.50 lakhs, whereas the liability of pension per month would be Rs. 0.74 lakhs. Similarly, in case of Canara Bank the number of retirees is 96 and the amount of commutation is Rs. 92.68 lakhs and the monthly pension payable would be Rs. 3.30 lakhs. The number of employees in case of Allahabad Bank is 15, in case of Indian Overseas Bank is 8 and in case of Union Bank of India is 4. Despite querries made information in respect of other Banks was not furnished by the appellants. A cursory look to the number of employees and the amount which is likely to be paid in case of the dismissal of appeals would show that the claims of the employees is not so huge which if accepted would defeat the Pension Scheme, as argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants.
11. A critical analysis of the definition of voluntary retirement in Regulation 2(y)(b) would clearly suggest that no distinction was intended to be made with the employees who had retired voluntarily between 1-1-1986 and 31-10-1993 and the employees who retired after 1-11-1993. There is no specific exclusion of such retirees. Reference to Regulation 29 in Regulation 2(y)(b) is intended to the compliance ofconditions for voluntary retirement and not the date specified therein. In other words if a person had retired voluntarily from the service of the Bank in accordance with the conditions specified under Regulation 29, he was deemed to be entitled to the grant of pension notwithstanding the date of his retirement. Such position has been acknowledged by the appellants in their reply wherein they have specifically stated:
'It is true that the Indian Banks' Association took the view based on the draft regulations that officers who retired voluntarily from the services of the bank between 1-1-1986 and 31-10-1993 were eligible for pension'.
There is nothing on the record to show that the draft Regulations which held the retirees like the writ petitioners entitled to the grant of pension were changed or modified either by the Central Government or by the Reserve Bank of India. It may be noticed that the Pension Regulations of 1995 had preceded long-standing demand of the employees of the Banking Industry. The claim of pension for the employees/officers of the Banks who had voluntarily retired between 1-1-1986 and 31-10-1993 had all along been agitated and ultimately considered not only by the concerned Banks - but also by Indian Banks' Association as is evident from Annexure-E and F. The grant of the pension was the consequence of the settlement on pension arrived at on 29-10-1993. The notice issued by the Indian Banks' Association which was published in the newspapers on 20-3-1994 intimated the concerned retirees:
'Indian Banks' Association on behalf of its member banks who are party to the Settlement on Pension signed on 29th October, 1993 wishes to inform employees (workman and officers) who retired on or after 1-1-1986 and on or before 31-10-1993 that they may, if they so choose, apply in the format prescribed by the bank for the membership of the Pension Scheme. Only such of the employees who retired from the services of the Banks who have adopted the Pension Scheme as per the Settlement/Joint Minutes entered into between IBA and the Workmen Unions/Officer's Organisations on 29th October, 1993 would be eligible for exercising option for the Pension Scheme. Retired employees who wish to opt for Pension Scheme in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) should exercise such option within four months reckoned from 1-4-1994 and refund the bank's Provident Fund contribution including interest received thereon along with simple interest of 6% p.a. from the date of receipt of the said amounts till the date of refund. The amount due should be refunded to the bank within 7 days from the receipt of intimation from the bank.
The details of the Pension Scheme and the format for option may be obtained from the branch/establishment of the bank from which the employees retired. The option letter should be tendered to the bank not later than 31-7-1994. The option once exercised is irrevocable. No separate intimation will be sent by Banks to individual retirees'.
On 13-6-1994 the Canara Bank issued a communication Annexure-F that pursuant to the settlement dated 29-10-1993 the IDA had submitted draft Pension Regulations for implementation after following the procedure prescribed under Section 19(1) of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980. Annexure-V attached to the Annexure-F referred to the Pension Scheme reiterated what was stated in the notice (Annexure-E) published by the Indian Banks' Association. Vide an another annexure attached with Annexure-E it was mentioned that the employees who had retired on or after 1986 but before 1-11-1993 were entitled to the grant of pension provided they applied for it on the format prescribed by the Bank and refund by the date decided by the Bank the entire contribution to PF including the interest received with further simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of withdrawal of the Provident Fund amount till the date of refund. The retirees were sent a number of communications and intimated to exercise their option on or before the dates mentioned in the intimations. It is worthwhile to mention that in the meeting held on 29-10-1993 between the management of 58 banks as represented by the Indian Banks' Association and their workmen as represented by the All India Bank Employees' Association a memorandum of settlement was arrived at in terms of Section 2(b) and Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. All the appellant-Banks are admittedly party to the memorandum of settlement. It is also not in dispute that the Pension Regulations were framed as a consequence of the settlement arrived at between the employer banks and their employees. The relevant portion of the agreement is reproduced hereunder:
'1. The member-banks set out in the Schedule 1 hereto shall introduce pension as second retirement benefit scheme in lieu of contributory Provident Fund where it does not exist for the workmen-employees of the member-banks with effect from 1st November, 1993.
2. Pension as a second retrial benefit scheme in lieu of contributory Provident Fund shall be available to the following category of employees/retired employees from 1st November, 1993 or the date of retirement, whichever is later.
(i) Employees who join service of the bank on or after 1st November, 1993;
(ii) Employees in service of the bank as on 31st October, 1993 and who on or before 30th June, 1994 exercise an option in writing in response to bank's notice to this effect to be given not later than 31st December, 1993 to become members of the Pension Scheme and to cease to be members of the contributory Provident Fund Scheme with effect from 1st November, 1993 and irrevocably authorise the bank or the trustees of the contributory provident fund to transfer the entire contribution of the bank along with entire interest accrued thereon to the credit of Pension Fund to be created for this purpose.
(iii) Retired employees who were in service of the bank/merged bank on or after 31st December, 1985 and retired on or after 1st January, 1986 but before 1st November, 1993 provided that such retired employees apply for it on their own on the format prescribed by each bank and refund within a period of six months reckoned from 1st November, 1993, the bank's entire contribution to the provident fund including interest received with further simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of withdrawal of the provident fund amount till the date of refund'.
The appellants have not referred to the existence of any circumstances or conditions which can be considered to be a ground for the change of the conditions of the statutory settlement arrived at between the parties. The draft Regulations, as earlier noted, were rightly understood by the parties concerned to confer the benefit of the Pension Scheme to the retirees of the banks prior to 1-11-1993 as well. Any other and contrary interpretation of the Pension Regulations would amount to frustrate the statutory settlement arrived at on 29-10-1993. The Regulations of 1995 are not referable to any other statutory provision except the statutory settlement of 29-10-1993. Under the agreement copies of the memorandum of settlement were forwarded to all the authorities listed in Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 with the purpose of taking effective steps for compliance. It was specifically mentioned therein that if there was any difference of opinion regarding any interpretation of any of the provisions of the settlement, the matter would be taken-up only at the level of the Indian Banks' Association and All India Banks Employees' Association for discussion and settlement. As noted earlier the Indian Banks' Association vide Annexure-E categorically held that the persons like the writ petitioners entitled to the grant of pensionary benefits.
12. The distinction sought to be drawn by the appellants with respect to the retirees before 1-11-1993 and retirees thereafter appears only to be imaginary and not real. The draft Pension Regulations were held applicable to the persons like the writ petitioners and the same were enforced obviously without any amendment or alteration, w.e.f. 29-9-1995. The learned Single Judge was therefore right in holding that the Regulations were applicable to all the employees who had opted for voluntary retirement notwithstanding the cut-off date of 1-11-1993.
13. It is acknowledged principle of the interpretation and the rule of construction that if any impugned action is reasonably capable of construction which does not involve the infringement of any fundamental rights, that construction must be preferred though the same may reasonably be possible to adopt an another manner which may lead to the infringement of fundamental rights. Applying such a test in the present case it would be seen that if the interpretation sought to be put by the appellants is accepted, the same would amount in violation of fundamental rights of equality as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 but if the construction is assumed in favour of the employees, the same would not result in the violation of any right much less a fundamental right. In interpreting a provision the Courts are required to keep in mind the facts and circumstances under which the provision is enacted or made, its purpose and object and the ultimate result sought to he achieved. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the position of law as noted hereinabove it can safely be held that the regulations were intended to be made applicable to all the voluntarily retired employees notwithstanding the cut-off date.
14. We are not impressed by the argument that as the Regulations conferred the pensionary benefits for the first time, writ petitioners had no right to claim the same, as their rights allegedly stood settled and crystalised before the enforcement of the pension Regulations. It is now well-settled that pension is granted in lieu of long service rendered by an employee and considered as deferred portion of compensation for past service. It cannot be termed to be a charity or a bounty nor is gratuitous payment solely dependent upon the whim or sweet will of the employer. In a democratic country like India, its origin is referred to social security plans which are consistent with the socio-economic requirements of the Constitution. The employees like the writ petitioners have been found to be consistently in struggle for the grant of pension in lieu of the service rendered by them in the banks. Such claims were referred and amicably settled under the Industrial Disputes Act. The grant of the pension to the persons like the writ petitioners could not, therefore, be held to be a gratuitous act of the Bank employers conferred upon the retirees for the first time in 1995 as argued on behalf of the appellants. A perusal of the record and upon consideration of circumstances it is held that the persons like the writ petitioners were held entitled to the pensionary benefits on account of the services rendered by them upon satisfaction of the conditions specified in the Regulations and that grant of such pension was neither a concession nor a charity or a bounty.
15. We are also not impressed by the submissions made on behalf of the appellants that as the voluntarily retired employees had drawn the package of terminal benefits many years before the enforcement of the Regulations, they were not entitled to the grant of pensionary benefit as allegedly there did not exist a relationship of employer and employee at the time of the enforcement of the Regulation. A perusal of Regulation 29 would show that the grant of pension to the voluntarily retired employees is subject to various conditions including the condition of exercising the option within the time specified and refund the Bank's provident fund contributions including the interest received thereon along with simple interest of 6% p.a. from the date of the receipt of the said amount till the date of refund. The amount due is required to be refunded to the bank within seven days from the receipt of intimation from the Bank. Terminal benefits are therefore required to be refunded along with the interest for being entitled to the grant of pension under the Regulation. The long drawn demand of the retired employees of the appellant-Banks impliedly shows that they had received package of terminal benefits subject to the result of their demand for the grant of pension on voluntary retirement. The retirees therefore have not only to refund the amount received by them but also interest received thereon along with simple interest of 6% p.a. which shall presumably be added to and deposited in the fund constituted under Regulation 5 of the Regulations. It cannot be said that the fund was created only for the persons retiring after 1-11-1993 as has been argued by the respondents. The retirees for the period from 1-1-1986 to 31-10-1993 are therefore deemed to be contributory to the fund created under Regulation 5 and entitled to the grant of pension payable under the pension Regulations.
16. There is another aspect of the matter which nullifies the pleas of the appellant regarding disentitlement to the grant of pension in favour of the writ petitioners. It has been emphatically argued that as the regulations were enforced on 29-9-1995 and as at that time the retirees-petitioners were not in service of the banks, they were not entitled to the grant of pension under the regulation because there did not allegedly exist any relationship of employer and employee. The plea is self-contradictory. Regulation 29 undisputedly holds that persons who had retired prior to the enforcement of the Regulations and on or after November 1993 are entitled to pension on voluntary retirement. Where is the question of existence of relationship of employer and employee for being entitled to grant of pensionary benefits under the Regulation? If the plea is accepted, then the distinction sought to be made between the retirees of the bank between the dates 1-11-1993 to 29-9-1995 and between 1-1-1986 to 31-10-1993 cannot be justified and has to be held to be not only contradictory but artificial and imaginary. If the employees retiring before the commencement of the Regulations but after 1-11-1993 can be held to be employees of the bank for the purposes of grant of pension, there is no justification for holding the retirees from 1-1-1986 to 31-10-1993 being not entitled to grant of pension on the ground of non-existence of relationship of employer and employee. The appellants have not been in a position to justify the reason for making this artificial and imaginary distinction which we have already held as non-existent. The right of the petitioners to claim benefit of the pension Regulation can be held to have been acceded under the Pension Regulations by having a reference to Regulation 3 of the Pension Regulations which specifically provides that the Regulations shall apply to the employees who were in service of the bank on or after 1-1-1986 but had retired before 1-11-1993. If the Regulations have specifically been made applicable to the persons like the writ petitioners, how it can be said that they are not entitled to the grant of pensionary benefits available to the erstwhile employees of the bank under the Regulation 29. If the writ petitioners are held not entitled to the grant of pensionary benefits under the 1995 Regulations, the applicability of the rules to them would be rendered redundant. What is the purpose of making Regulations applicable under Regulation 3(1)(a) has not been clarified by the appellants. The persons who had retired after 1-11-1993 but before the notified date have admittedly been held entitled to the grant of pension under Regulation 29 and the Rules have also been applied to such persons under Regulation 3(2) of the 1995Regulations. Regulation 3(1)(c) is reproduction of the Pension Scheme notice issued vide Annexure-E and F. The plain reading of Rule 3(1)(b)(c) clearly shows that the persons like writ petitioners were entitled to the grant of pensionary benefit. For the purposes of convenience aforesaid Regulation is reproduced hereunder:
'3. Application.--These regulations shall apply to employees who:--
(1) (a) were in the service of the Bank on or after 1st day of January, 1986 but had retired before the 1st day of November, 1993; and
(b) exercise an option in writing within one hundred and twenty days from the notified date to become member of the Fund; and
(c) refund within sixty days after the expiry of the said period of one hundred and twenty days specified in clause (b) the entire amount of the Bank's contribution to the Provident Fund including interest accrued thereon together with a further simple interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum on the said amount from the date of settlement of the Provident Fund Account till the date of refund of the aforesaid amount to the bank'.
17. In view of the provisions of Regulations 2(t), (u), (y), 3, 29 and the correspondence which had ensued between parties, it is held that the respondent-employees were deemed to be entitled to the grant of pensionary benefits under the Regulations upon fulfilment of the conditions specified therein.
18. We have been informed that the grant of pensionary benefits to the employees of the banks who had sought voluntary retirement, has been acknowledged and is prevalent in the banking industry. Interpreting similar regulations, the Reserve Bank of India, vide its communication dated 29-10-1990 intimated its Managers and Officers-in-charge of the Banks about the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations 1990, with a request for taking immediate steps for the implementation of the Pension Scheme. Regulation 3 of the aforesaid regulations is identical to Regulation 3 of the 1995 Regulations of the appellant-Banks. Regulation 3 of the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulation provides:
'3. Application.-
These Regulations shall apply to:--
(1) Employees who join the Bank's service on or after 1st November, 1990.
(2) Employees who are in the service of the Bank as on 1st November, 1990, except those employees who, within the period prescribed by the Bank, exercise an option in writing not to be governed by these Regulations.
(3) Employees who were in service as on 1st January, 1986 (excluding those on leave preparatory to retirement) and had retired before 1st November 1990, provided they exercise option to be governed by these Regulations and refund, within such period as may be specified, the Bank's contribution to Provident Fund including interest received by them from the Bank together with simple interest at six per cent per annum from the date of withdrawal till the date of repayment. Pension shall be payable to them in accordance with Regulation 31'.
In the communication it is stated:
'(ii) As the scheme covers the employees who retired from service on or after 1st January, 1986 (excluding those who were on leave preparatory to retirement as on that date), these employees may be notified of the coming into operation of the scheme through an advertisement as per the draft enclosed (Annexure-I) which may be published in one prominent daily newspaper each in English and Hindi, and in one newspaper in the local vernacular language. It should be ensured that the advertisements in all the three languages are issued simultaneously and at an early date, preferably on a Sunday. These should be repeated once after a week's interval. In view of the urgency, it is suggested that their publication may be arranged in the newspaper editions of 4th and 11th November, 1990. The cost of the advertisements may be borne in the books of the office concerned'.
19. Similar provision is prevalent in the Life Insurance Corporation of India who have framed the Rules known as 'The Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995. Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules is identical as prescribed in the 1995 Regulations.
20. A perusal of the draft Pension Regulations of 1993, the final Pension Regulations of 1995, the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990, and the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, would show that all such Regulations and rules are the result of demand for grant of pension to the employees of the banking industry including those who had retired before the enforcement of those Rules. It also appears that the regulations or the rules have been framed on the basis of similar model rules and regulations apparently prepared in consequence of statutory settlement arrived at between the employer and the employee of the banking industry. The appellants are, therefore, not justified in holding that the respondent-retirees were not entitled to the grant of pension under the Pension Regulations of 1995.
21. While allowing the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge referred to the verdict of the Apex Court in D.S. Nakara and Others v Union of India and held that if the Regulation 29 was interpreted to mean making a classification of the retirees who had retired before1-11-1993 and retirees who had retired thereafter, the provision to the extent of making the distinction was ultra vires. Referring to Nakara's case, supra and the other cases on the point, the learned Single Judge held:
'I do not think it necessary to refer to all the cases cited at the Bar. In Nakara's case, supra, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has laid down that classification of pensionary benefits on the basis of the retiring date is not founded on any rational principle and is, therefore, void as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The object of providing a pension or liberalisation thereof is to provide a decent standard of life to the working people after their superannuation. Hence, where the retirees belong to the same class, no unequal treatment can be made on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later. In Krishena Kumar v Union of India and Others , the Supreme Court has held that the Nakara's case, supra, did not lay down that all retirees formed one class and no further classification was permissible. Thus, it did not obliterate the distinction between Railway Employees governed by the Provident Fund Scheme and those governed by the Pension Scheme. While under a Pension Scheme, Government has a continuing obligation so long as the retiree is alive, in a Provident Fund Scheme, each retiree's right is crystalised on the date of retirement and Government has no continuing obligation thereafter.
In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Association and Others v Union of India and Others , the Supreme Court has referred to Krishena Kumar's case cited supra and held thus:
'When the State decides to revise and liberalise an existing Pension Scheme with a view to augmenting the social security cover granted to pensioners, it cannot ordinarily grant the benefit to a section of the pensioners and deny the same to others by drawing an artificial cut-off line which cannot be justified on rational grounds and is wholly unconnected with the object intended to be achieved. But when an employer introduces an entirely new scheme which has no connection with the existing scheme, different considerations enter the decision making process. One such consideration may be the financial implications of the Scheme and the extent of capacity of the employer to bear the burden. Keeping in view its capacity to absorb the financial burden that the scheme would throw, the employer would have to decide upon the extent of applicability of the scheme'.
But on the facts of this case, as I have already stated, classification is made among the retired employees as employees retired and employees who sought voluntary retirement and retired. In my view that is not permissible'.
22. Referring to various judgments of the Apes Court after Nakara's case, supra, learned Counsel for the appellants have submitted that no relief could be granted to the retiree employees of the appellant-Banks on the basis of Nakara's case, supra. Specific reference has been made to Krishena Kumar's case, supra, Indian Ex-Services League v Union of India, All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Association's case, supra, State of West Bengal v Ratan Behari Dey, Sasadhar Chakravarthy and Another v Union of India and Others, State of Rajasthan and Another v Amrit Lal Gandhi, State of Mysore and Another v K.N. Chandrasekhara. Chandigarh Administration and Another v Jagjit Singh and Another.
A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Nakara's case, supra, held:
'With the expanding horizons of socio-economic justice, the Socialist Republic and Welfare State which the country endeavours to set up and the fact that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively low are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices, the falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs, by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria, 'being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date' for being eligible for the liberalised Pension Scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and being wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, the eligibility for liberalised Pension Scheme of 'being subsequent to that date' in the memoranda, violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional and liable to be struck down. But, as the arbitrary and discrimination portion in the memoranda can be easily severed, both memoranda shall be enforced and implemented after severance of the unconstitutional part. However, arrears of pension prior to the specified date are not required to be paid to those who have retired before the specified date because to that extent the scheme is prospective. Accordingly, all pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules and Army Pension Regulations shall be entitled to pension as computedunder the liberalised Pension Scheme from the specified date, irrespective of their date of retirement'.
In Krishena Kumar's case, supra, the Supreme Court while interpreting the Pension Scheme of the Railway employees held that the option given to the railway employees covered by provident fund to switch over to the Pension Scheme with effect from a specified cut-off date did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Referring to Nakara's case, supra, the Court held that it was never required to be decided in that case that all retirees formed a class and no further classification was permissible. In case of pension retirees who were alive, the Government had a continuing obligation and if one was affected by clearness the others may also be similarly affected. It further held that in each of the case of option the specified date bore a definite nexus to the object sought to be achieved by giving of the option. The specified date under the Pension Regulations was held to have been fixed in relation to the reason for giving the option and only the employees who retired after the specified date and before and after the date of notification were held eligible. Agreeing with the submission of the Counsel appearing for the Union of India, the Supreme Court held that in Nakara's case, supra, it was never held that whenever there was liberalisation of pension the pension retirees and provident fund retirees must be given option. The law laid down in Nakara's case, supra, was never held to be no good law but in its application the Court found that the petitioners were not entitled to the grant of relief on the basis of Nakara's case, supra.
23. In Indian Ex-Services League case, supra, it was again reiterated that the decision in Nakara's case, supra, had limited application and there was no scope for enlarging the ambit of that decision to cover all claims made by the pension retirees or a demand for an identical amount of pension to every retiree from the same rank irrespective of the date of retirement, even though the reckonable emoluments for the purpose of computation of their pension be different. The verdict in Nakara's case, supra, was again not disturbed.
24. In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Association's case, supra, the Supreme Court again relied upon Nakara's case, supra, and held that:
'If the choice of the date results in classification or division of members of a homogeneous group it would be open to the Court to insist that it be shown that the classification is based on an intelligible differentia and on rational consideration which bears a nexus to the purpose and object thereof. The differential treatment accorded to those who retired subsequent thereto must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14, for otherwise it would be offensive to the philosophy of equality enshrined in the Constitution'.
Similarly in all other cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the Apex Court referred to Nakara's case, supra, distinguished it on facts regarding its applicability, but in no case it was heldthat the Nakara's case, supra, had not laid down the correct position of law.
25. It may be noticed that in none of the cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants there exists any provision like Regulations 2(t) and (y), 3 and 29 as is found in the Pension Regulations of 1995. The principle of law laid down in Nakara's case, supra, though applicable, may not be insisted upon for the reasons that we have found the Pension Regulations otherwise applicable to the bank employees who were in service of the bank and had retired after the 1st day of January, 1986 but before the 1st day of November, 1993. Reference to Nakara's case, supra and reliance upon the subsequent judgments on the point by the rival parties may not be of any help to us for determining the real controversy which we have otherwise found to be in favour of the retiree-employees.
26. Most of the facts have been noticed from the appeals filed by the Canara Bank in order to dispose of all these appeals which arise out of a common judgment delivered while interpreting various provisions of the Regulations and the provisions of the settled law which was applied in the light of almost admitted facts. There is no merit in any of the appeals which are, accordingly, dismissed with costs.