Service Law – State Co-operative Bank and District Cooperative Bank Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme 2005 – First respondent-co-operative bank decided to implement the 2005 Pension Scheme, formulated by the Government of Kerala, for the employees retiring on or after 1 st May, 2005 – Disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant, employee of the Bank – Appellant retired on 31 Jan. 2007 – His pension was held up – Bank called upon the appellant to indicate his willingness to join the Pension Scheme – Appellant indicated his willingness and was enrolled in the Pension Scheme – Grievance of the appellant that, despite him having conveyed his willingness to join the Pension Scheme, the pension records were not forwarded by the Bank to the second respondent-Board which administers the Pension Scheme – Committee constituted by the Bank to look into the allegations levelled against the appellant, opined that there was no merit in the allegations and he was entitled to his terminal dues including pension – However, disbursement of the retiral dues was being held up – High Court dismissed appellant’s writ petition inter alia seeking sanction of his pensionary dues w.e.f 1 st February, 2007– On appeal, held: Eligibility of the appellant to pension under the Pension Scheme is not in dispute – Pension Scheme stipulates that superannuation pension shall commence from the beginning of the month succeeding the month in which the employee retires from service after attaining the age of superannuation – Appellant is entitled to pension w.e.f 1st February, 2007 – Bank did not forward the pension papers to the Board purportedly because of the disciplinary proceedings – It was only after the appellant was exonerated that he was finally intimated of the remittance which was required to be made, which the appellant did on the same day – No reason for the Bank to hold up the disbursal of the pensionary dues at the material time by not forwarding all the connected papers and information to the Board – Entitlement of the appellant cannot be denied – Ordered accordingly – Impugned judgment set aside. The first respondent-co-operative bank decided to implement the State Co-operative Bank and District Co-operative Bank Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme 2005, formulated by the Government of Kerala for the employees of the State Co-operative Bank and District Co-operative banks, for its employees retiring on or after 1st May 2005. The appellant was an employee of the bank in the State of Kerala, who entered service in 1978 and rendered nearly 29 years of service before attaining the age of superannuation on 31 st January, 2007. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant and payment of his pension was held up. The bank in March 2007 called upon the appellant to indicate his willingness to join the Pension Scheme. The appellant indicated his willingness. As per the appellant, the pension records of the appellant were not forwarded by the Bank to the Board which administers the Pension Scheme. The Bank constituted a Sub-Committee to look into the allegations levelled against the appellant. The Committee opined that there was no merit in the allegations against the appellant and he was entitled to his terminal dues including pension. However, the disbursement of the retiral dues was being held up. The appellant instituted writ petition before the High Court seeking sanction of his pensionary dues w.e.f 1st February, 2007 and the payment of arrears together with interest until 1st November, 2013, when eventually the pensionary dues were paid. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The eligibility of the appellant to pension under the State Co-operative Bank and District Co-operative Bank Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme 2005 is not in dispute. The appellant is an employee who retired from service after 31 March 2005 and is eligible under para 5(1)(i) of the Pension Scheme. Para 19 of the Pension Scheme stipulates that superannuation pension shall commence from the beginning of the month succeeding the month in which the employee retires from service after attaining the age of superannuation. In terms of the provisions contained in paragraph 19 of the Pension Scheme, the appellant is entitled to pension with effect from 1 February 2007. The entitlement of the appellant to receive pension with effect from 1 February 2007 was denied on the basis of para 5(2) of the Pension Scheme by the Single Judge and in appeal. The provisions contained in paragraph 5.2 have been held to be ultra vires in a judgment of a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in T K Jayan vs State of Kerala & Ors .The Single Judge held that Banks which are governed by the Pension Scheme are under an obligation in terms of para 29 of the Pension Scheme to transfer the employer’s contribution together with interest accrued thereon. Any delay on the part of a Bank cannot result in detrimental consequences for the retirees. [Paras 15, 16] [588-B-E]
1.2 The Bank did not forward the pension papers to the second respondent-Board purportedly because of the disciplinary proceedings. Evidently, it was only after the appellant was exonerated on 28 September 2013 that on 12 October 2013 that he was finally intimated of the remittance which was required to be made, which the appellant did on the same day. No reason or justification is found for the Bank to hold up the disbursal of the pensionary dues at the material time by not forwarding all the connected papers and information to the second respondent. Since the entitlement of the appellant cannot be denied, the following order will meet the ends of justice: (i) The second respondent shall within a period of four weeks from today, pay over to the appellant, the arrears of pension between 1 February 2007 and 1 November 2013; (ii) In the event that any interest is required to be paid on account of the delayed receipt of the contribution by the Bank, this shall be computed within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order and intimated to the first respondent; (iii) Within one week of the receipt of the communication referred to in clause (ii) above, the first respondent shall remit the amount to the second respondent; and (iv) The arrears that are due and payable to the appellant shall be paid over within a period of two months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 17-19] [558-G; 559-A-G] T K Jayan v. State of Kerala & Ors Decision of Kerela High Court dated 11th April, 2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 29901/2012 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.