# THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD v. THE REGISTRAR,COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2022] 5 S.C.R. 291
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-01-11
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 297-298 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S. Oka
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-punjab-state-cooperative-agricultural-development-bank-ltd-v-the-registrar-36424
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

Service Law - Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Land
Mortgage Banks Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1978 - r.15(ii) -
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
- Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 21 - Pension Scheme -
Retrospective amendment taking away the benefit available to
employees under the existing rule - Correctness of - Held: An
amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of
taking away the benefit already available to the employee under
the existing rule would divest the employee from his vested/accrued
rights and is thus violative of the rights guaranteed u/Articles 14 &
16 - In the present case, Bank pension scheme was introduced from
01.04.1989 - Options were called from the respondent-employees
and those who gave option became member of the pension scheme
and accordingly pension was continuously paid to them - Only in
the year 2010, when the Bank failed in discharging its obligations,
employees approached High Court - The Bank later on withdrew
the pension scheme by deleting clause 15(ii) by amendment in 2014
which was introduced w.e.f 01.04.1989 - Employees who availed
the benefit of pension under the scheme, their rights indeed stood
vested and accrued to them and any amendment to the contrary
made with retrospective operation to take away the right accrued
to the retired employee under the existing rule is violative of Articles
14 & 21- Further, non-availability of financial resources is not a
defence available to the appellant-Bank in taking away the vested
rights accrued to the employees that too when it is for their socioeconomic security - Pension is not a bounty - Appeals dismissed.
Service Law - Concept of vested/accrued rights of an
employee - Discussed.
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 291
291
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
292
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
Doctrines/Principles - Legitimate expectation vis-à-vis a
vested/accrued right - Held: There is a distinction between the
legitimate expectation and a vested/accrued right in favour of the
employees - The rule which classifies such employee for
promotional, seniority, age of retirement purposes operates on those
who entered service before framing of the rules but it operates in
futuro - In a sense, it governs the future right of seniority, promotion
or age of retirement of those who are already in service.
Service Law - Pension Scheme - Plea of financial distress
taken by the appellant-Bank to justify the impugned amendment
taking away the right accrued to the retired employee under the
existing rule - Held: Not acceptable - Rule making authority was
presumed to know repercussions of the particular piece of
subordinate legislation and once the Bank took a conscious and
introduced the pension scheme, it can be presumed that the competent
authority was aware of the resources from where the funds are to be
created for making payments to its retirees.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 An amendment having retrospective operation
which has the effect of taking away the benefit already available
to the employee under the existing rule indeed would divest the
employee from his vested or accrued rights and that being so, it
would be held to be violative of the rights guaranteed under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the instant case, the
Bank pension scheme was introduced from 1.04.1989 and options
were called from the employees and those who had given their
option became member of the pension scheme and accordingly
pension was continuously paid to them without fail and only in
the year 2010, when the Bank failed in discharging its obligations,
respondent employees approached the High Court by filing the
writ petitions. The Bank later on withdrawn the scheme of pension
by deleting clause 15(ii) by an amendment dated 11.03.2014 which
was introduced with effect from 1.04.1989 and the employees
who availed the benefit of pension under the scheme, indeed their
rights stood vested and accrued to them and any amendmen

## Text

_Characters 0–39,480 of 63,809. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39480 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
291
THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.
v.
THE REGISTRAR,COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 297-298 of 2022)
JANUARY 11, 2022
[AJAY RASTOGI AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]
Service Law - Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Land
Mortgage Banks Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1978 - r.15(ii) -
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
- Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 21 - Pension Scheme -
Retrospective amendment taking away the benefit available to
employees under the existing rule - Correctness of - Held: An
amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of
taking away the benefit already available to the employee under
the existing rule would divest the employee from his vested/accrued
rights and is thus violative of the rights guaranteed u/Articles 14 &
16 - In the present case, Bank pension scheme was introduced from
01.04.1989 - Options were called from the respondent-employees
and those who gave option became member of the pension scheme
and accordingly pension was continuously paid to them - Only in
the year 2010, when the Bank failed in discharging its obligations,
employees approached High Court - The Bank later on withdrew
the pension scheme by deleting clause 15(ii) by amendment in 2014
which was introduced w.e.f 01.04.1989 - Employees who availed
the benefit of pension under the scheme, their rights indeed stood
vested and accrued to them and any amendment to the contrary
made with retrospective operation to take away the right accrued
to the retired employee under the existing rule is violative of Articles
14 & 21- Further, non-availability of financial resources is not a
defence available to the appellant-Bank in taking away the vested
rights accrued to the employees that too when it is for their socioeconomic security - Pension is not a bounty - Appeals dismissed.
Service Law - Concept of vested/accrued rights of an
employee - Discussed.
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 291
291
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
292
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
Doctrines/Principles - Legitimate expectation vis-à-vis a
vested/accrued right - Held: There is a distinction between the
legitimate expectation and a vested/accrued right in favour of the
employees - The rule which classifies such employee for
promotional, seniority, age of retirement purposes operates on those
who entered service before framing of the rules but it operates in
futuro - In a sense, it governs the future right of seniority, promotion
or age of retirement of those who are already in service.
Service Law - Pension Scheme - Plea of financial distress
taken by the appellant-Bank to justify the impugned amendment
taking away the right accrued to the retired employee under the
existing rule - Held: Not acceptable - Rule making authority was
presumed to know repercussions of the particular piece of
subordinate legislation and once the Bank took a conscious and
introduced the pension scheme, it can be presumed that the competent
authority was aware of the resources from where the funds are to be
created for making payments to its retirees.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 An amendment having retrospective operation
which has the effect of taking away the benefit already available
to the employee under the existing rule indeed would divest the
employee from his vested or accrued rights and that being so, it
would be held to be violative of the rights guaranteed under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the instant case, the
Bank pension scheme was introduced from 1.04.1989 and options
were called from the employees and those who had given their
option became member of the pension scheme and accordingly
pension was continuously paid to them without fail and only in
the year 2010, when the Bank failed in discharging its obligations,
respondent employees approached the High Court by filing the
writ petitions. The Bank later on withdrawn the scheme of pension
by deleting clause 15(ii) by an amendment dated 11.03.2014 which
was introduced with effect from 1.04.1989 and the employees
who availed the benefit of pension under the scheme, indeed their
rights stood vested and accrued to them and any amendment to
the contrary, which has been made with retrospective operation
to take away the right accrued to the retired employee under the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
293
existing rule certainly is not only violative of Article 14 but also
of Article 21 of the Constitution. [Paras 47, 48][314-H; 315-A-D]
1.2 There is a distinction between the legitimate expectation
and a vested/accrued right in favour of the employees. The rule
which classifies such employee for promotional, seniority, age of
retirement purposes undoubtedly operates on those who entered
service before framing of the rules but it operates in futuro. In a
sense, it governs the future right of seniority, promotion or age
of retirement of those who are already in service. For the sake of
illustration, if a person while entering into service, has a legitimate
expectation that as per the then existing scheme of rules, he
may be considered for promotion after certain years of qualifying
service or with the age of retirement which is being prescribed
under the scheme of rules but at a later stage, if there is any
amendment made either in the scheme of promotion or the age
of superannuation, it may alter other conditions of service such
scheme of rules operates in futuro. But at the same time, if the
employee who had already been promoted or fixed in a particular
pay scale, if that is being taken away by the impugned scheme of
rules retrospectively, that certainly will take away the vested/
accrued right of the incumbent which may not be permissible and
may be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
[Paras 49, 50][315-D-H]
1.3 With regard to the submission about the financial distress
of the appellant Bank to justify the impugned amendment to say
that it may not be possible to continue the grant of pension any
more is concerned, suffice to say, that the rule making authority
was presumed to know repercussions of the particular piece of
subordinate legislation and once the Bank took a conscious
decision after taking permission from the Government of Punjab
and Registrar, Cooperative, introduced the pension scheme with
effect from 1st April 1989, it can be presumed that the competent
authority was aware of the resources from where the funds are to
be created for making payments to its retirees and merely
because at a later point of time, it was unable to hold financial
resources at its command to its retirees, would not be justified
to withdraw the scheme retrospectively detrimental to the
THE PUNJAB STATE CO-OP. AGRIC. DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.
v. THE REGISTRAR,CO-OP. SOCIETIES
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
294
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
interests of the employees who not only became member of the
scheme but received their pension regularly at least upto the
year 2010 until the dispute arose between the parties and entered
into litigation. Non-availability of financial resources would not
be a defence available to the appellant Bank in taking away the
vested rights accrued to the employees that too when it is for
their socio-economic security. It is an assurance that in their old
age, their periodical payment towards pension shall remain
assured. The pension which is being paid to them is not a bounty
and it is for the appellant to divert the resources from where the
funds can be made available to fulfil the rights of the employees
in protecting the vested rights accrued in their favour. [Paras 54,
55][317-A-E]
Marathwada Gramin Bank Karamchari Sanghatana
and Another v. Management of Marathwada Gramin
Bank and Others 2011 (9) SCC 620 : [2011] 11
SCR 269; State of Rajasthan Vs. A.N. Mathur and
Others 2014 (13) SCC 531 : [2013] [11] SCR 240; State
of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Rajesh Chander
Sood and Others 2016 (10) SCC 77 : [2016] 6 SCR 851
- held inapplicable.
1.4 So far as the submission made by the serving employees
is concerned, they have no locus to question. At the same time,
their apprehension as being projected to this Court is completely
misplaced for the reason that employer/employees contribution
is being provided under the employees pension scheme(EPS) of
the Act 1952 which is made applicable to the serving employees
and they are entitled to get pension in terms of the provisions of
the Act 1952. So far as their complaint regarding payment of
contribution is concerned, it is in no manner going to be adjusted
for payment of pension to retirees/respondents, who are entitled
to get their pension in terms of the pension scheme of which
they are members and it is for the appellant Bank to reserve the
resources and make payment to the retired employees seeking
pension to the scheme in vogue when they became members
and took benefits pursuant thereto. [Para 56][317-F-H]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
295
1.5 The complaint of the employees that they are not being
paid their pension since 2013, at the given time few employees
have been given benefit of one time settlement as introduced by
the Bank as an interim measure which was subject to their rights
being preserved, in the pending litigation, taking grievance of
the either party into consideration, the financial constraints of
the Bank and the rights of the employees who are entitled to get
pension under the bank pension scheme, so far as the arrears
towards element of pension to which the retired employees are
entitled for, the appellant Bank is at liberty to pay arrears towards
pension upto 31st December, 2021 in 12 monthly installments in
the next one year by the end of December, 2022 and those
employees who have accepted payment under one time settlement
at a given point of time, what is being paid to them is always open
for adjustment against arrears of their due pension. Still if arrears
remain outstanding, the same shall be paid in 12 monthly
installments. At the same time, each of the employee who is
member of the Bank Pension scheme must get pension to which
he/she is entitled from the month of January 2022 as admissible
under the law. [Para 57][318-A-D]
Chairman, Railway Board and Others Vs. C.R.
Rangadhamaiah and Others 1997 (6) SCC 623 : [1997]
3 Suppl. SCR 63 - followed.
UP. Raghavendra Acharya and Others Vs. State of
Karnataka and Others 2006 (9) SCC 630 : [2006] 2
Suppl. SCR 582; Bank of Baroda and Another vs. G.
Palani and Others 2018 SCC Online SC 3691 - relied
on.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 11SCR 269
held inapplicable
Para 25
[2013] 11 SCR 240
held inapplicable
Para 25
[2016] 6 SCR 851
held inapplicable
Para 25
[1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 63
followed
Para 30
[2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 582
relied on
Para 30
THE PUNJAB STATE CO-OP. AGRIC. DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.
v. THE REGISTRAR,CO-OP. SOCIETIES
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
296
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AJAY RASTOGI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Civil Appeals @ SLP(Civil) Nos. 1940-1941 of 2020 and the
cognate appeals arise from the self-same common judgment dated 29th
July, 2019 and 4th October, 2019 passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
3. The facts have been noticed by this Court from Civil Appeals
@ SLP (Civil) Nos. 1940-1941 of 2020.
4. The appellant in the present batch of appeals, is the Punjab
State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Bank'), a registered cooperative society and connected
Civil Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12864 of 2020 has
been preferred by the serving employees of the bank who also claim to
be aggrieved by the self-same impugned judgment in the proceedings.
At the same time, the respondents are the original writ petitioners who
are the retired employees and the service conditions of the employees
are governed by the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Land
Mortgage Banks Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter
being referred to as the "Rules 1978") and became members of the
Bank Pension Scheme, which was introduced w.e.f. 1st April, 1989.
5. The appellant Bank is a registered cooperative society which
was earlier known as "Punjab State Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank
Ltd." The principal object of the Bank is to provide long term loans to
the farming community and to protect them from the clutches of money
lenders. The main funding of the appellant Bank is by way of loans from
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development(NABARD) as
per the norms laid down. The appellant Bank has two tier structure
comprising of "Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank
Ltd." at Apex level(SADB) and the "Primary Agricultural Development
Banks"(PADB) at the grass root level. These two banks ensure timely
delivery of credit to the farmers, who are its members and directly
benefitted with various schemes which provide long term and shortterm loans to them.
6. Prior to 1989, the employees of the appellant Bank were covered
under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
297
1952 (hereinafter being referred to as the "Act 1952"). The scheme
was being duly adhered to and necessary contributions were regularly
paid by employees and the employer Bank.
7. The Department of Finance, Government of Punjab, vide its
letter dated 22nd September 1988, pursuant to recommendations of the
Punjab Pay Commission to bring the employees serving in various Public
Sector Undertakings and State aided institutions under purview of the
State Pension Rules, solicited the views/comments of the concerned
organisations to inter-alia communicate the additional financial burden
involved in each case and whether the organisation/organisations could
bear the additional liability out of their own resources. These
recommendations were placed before the Administrator of the Bank
who vide Resolution dated 22nd June 1989 decided to implement the
recommendations of the State Government and as a consequence thereof,
the pension scheme of the employees and Officers in the common cadre
was introduced w.e.f. 1st April, 1989.
8. Resolution No.24 passed by the Administrator of the appellant
Bank dated 22nd June, 1989 is reproduced as under:-
THE PUNJAB STATE CO-OP. AGRIC. DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.
v. THE REGISTRAR,CO-OP. SOCIETIES [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
298
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
9. In furtherance thereof, the appellant Bank sent a letter dated
27th June, 1989 to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, seeking
approval for introduction of the pension scheme for its employees covered
under the Rules, 1978. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, by
its communication dated 7th February, 1990 conveyed its approval for
introduction of the pension scheme proposed by the appellant Bank to its
employees covered under the Rules 1978. In pursuance thereof, the
amendment was carried out in the Rules, 1978 and Rule 15(ii) was
introduced authorizing the Board of Directors to formulate pension
scheme with the approval of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab.
For the purpose of reference, Rule 15(ii) is extracted hereunder:-
"15 (i) PROVIDENT FUND:-
The employees shall be entitled to the benefit of the General
Provident Fund as provided in the employees Provident Fund Act,
1952 and scheme framed thereunder.
(ii) THE PENSION SCHEME FOR THE EMPLOYEES/
OFFICES IN THE COMMON CADRE RULES OF THE
PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT BANK W.E.F. 1.4.89.
1. Short title and commencement:-
(i) The rules shall be called, the Punjab State Cooperative
Agricultural Development Banks Employees Pension, Family
Pension and General Provident Fund Rules.
(ii) These Rules shall come into force with effect from 1.4.89.
2. Application
(i) These rules shall apply to all the posts in the services specified
in the Appendix 'I' of the Common Cadre Rules, provided that in
case of the employees appointed by transfer from Government
Departments, these rules shall only apply to the extent specified
in their terms and conditions of deputation agreed upon with the
Government Department concerned.
Provided further that nothing in these rules shall affect the
application of any other law, statutory rules, bye-laws and
regulations for time being in force.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
299
Provided further that an employee who joins service on or
after coming into force of these rules and such existing employees,
who opt for these rules, shall be covered by these rules. All
category of employees shall have to exercise this option in FormA to these rules within three months from the date of notification
of these rules.
(ii) The employees who do not opt for these rules shall be governed
by the Employees Provident Fund Act and Rules.
3. Definition:-
XXX XXX XXX XXX
(o) Pay:- Pay means the pay as defined in Rule 2.44 of the Punjab
Civil Services Rules Volume-I Part-I.
Note:- Unless the contrary appears from the context or
subject to term 'pay' defined in Rule 2.44 of the Punjab Civil
Services, Volume-I, Part-I, does not include "Special Pay."
10. In furtherance thereto, the amended Rule 15(ii) came into
force with effect from 1st April, 1989. In sequel to the introduction of
implementation of the scheme, the contributions made by the employees
and the appellant Bank were transferred to create the pension corpus
fund to make it functionally viable and a trust was created by a trust
deed dated 24th March, 1993 for management and effective
implementation of the scheme.
11. It reveals from the record that the employees of the appellant
Bank who had opted for pension became members of the pension scheme
and continued to derive the benefit of pension after they had opted for it
till the year 2010. Later, when the appellant Bank found the scheme to
be unviable on account of financial constraints, the Board of Directors
of the appellant Bank in its meeting dated 29th May, 2010 in reference to
Agenda No. 15 reconsidered the matter about giving pension to the bank
employees and resolved as under:-
1.
Pension to the retired employees and those going to retire
in future be communicated.
2.
Pension Scheme will not be applicable in case of employees
employed on or after 1.1.2004.
THE PUNJAB STATE CO-OP. AGRIC. DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.
v. THE REGISTRAR,CO-OP. SOCIETIES [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
300
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
3.
Pensioners be not given the benefit of commutation of
pension, medical reimbursement and LTC.
4.
As per existing rules, the contribution equal to the 12% GPF
deduction of employees to be continued by bank.
5.
As per letter No.CA3/64/13717 dated 29.8.2008 of Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, 12% of the profits of SADB &
PADBs be allocated to employees benefit fund and its 90%
share be contributed to the pension fund.
6.
Bank to continue pension from its funds/expenses by stopping
the commutation of pension, medical reimbursement and LTC
facilities to its employees and retired employees, imposing
25% deduction on eligible amount of pension and after
adjusting the pension amount against SADB/PADBs profits
according to rules be made up on the basis of outstanding
loans of SADB and PADBs.
7.
As and when there is improvement in financial condition of
bank, the payment of full pension may be considered.
12. The appellant Bank sent a letter dated 9th June, 2010 to the
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, seeking approval of the aforesaid
Resolution. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, vide its letter
dated 3rd September, 2010 issued directions to the appellant Bank to
review its proposal. Pursuant thereto, the appellant Bank submitted its
revised proposal to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, on 30th
March, 2011 to proceed with the pension scheme in accordance with
Resolution No. 15 dated 29th May, 2010. Although the proposal was
turned down by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh
still the Board of Directors of the appellant Bank vide its Resolution
dated 17th August, 2012 decided to discontinue the pension scheme and
revert to the scheme of Contributory Provident Fund with a proposal of
One Time Settlement. The Board of Directors, later in exercise of its
powers vested in Section 84A(2) of the Punjab Cooperative Societies
Act, 1961 with the prior approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies
made amendment in Rule 15 of the Rules, 1978 by order dated 11th
March, 2014. Pursuant thereto, Rule 15(ii) stood deleted. The order dated
11th March, 2014 is reproduced hereunder:-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
301
O/o Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh
(Credit Branch-1)
To
The Managing Director,
The Punjab State Cooperative Agri. Dev. Bank Ltd.,
Chandigarh.
Memo. Credit/CA-3/2841
Dated: 11.03.2014
Sub:- Amendment in Clause 15 of Punjab State Cooperative
Agricultural Development Bank Service Common Cadre
Rules, 1978.
Ref:
Your office letter No. Admn/S07/11984 dated 27.01.2014
This office has received a proposal on the subject cited
above.
After examining the proposal and the legal opinion sent by
the Bank, in exercise of powers vested vide Section 84A(2) of
the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act 1961, Registrar Cooperative
Societies, is pleased to allow the following amendments in the
Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Service
Common Cadre Rules 1978 as under:
13. It reveals from the record that since the appellant Bank much
before the amendment had stopped making payments of pension in terms
THE PUNJAB STATE CO-OP. AGRIC. DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.
v. THE REGISTRAR,CO-OP. SOCIETIES [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
302
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
of Rule 15(ii) of the Rules 1978, the employees approached the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing writ petitions and
various interim orders were passed from time to time and even at one
stage, it was decided to introduce a proposal of one time settlement
which was furnished by the appellant Bank on 16th October, 2012 in the
pending proceedings before the High Court and, as informed, few of the
employees have settled their claims under the One Time Settlement but
it will be appropriate to notice at this stage that while the proceedings
were pending before the Division Bench of the High Court, by Order
dated 24th January 2014, it was made clear that one time settlement
which has been implemented after seeking approval of the competent
authority shall be without prejudice to the legal rights of the applicant/
respondent employees. The Order dated 24th January, 2014 is reproduced
hereunder:-
"CM-109-LPA-2014
Allowed as prayed for.
Document Annexure A1 is taken on record subject to such
exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.
CM-71-LPA-2014 in LPA-2001-2013
Notice to the non-applicant/appellants. Ms. Jaishree Thakur,
Advocate accepts notice.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping
in view the fact that since One Time Settlement scheme has
already been implemented after seeking approval of the competent
authority, this application is disposed of with a clarification that
the implementation of the said scheme shall be without prejudice
to the legal rights of the applicant/respondents."
14. This fact can be further noticed that the learned Single Judge
of the High Court decided the writ petitions by a Judgment dated 31st
August 2013 and Rule 15(ii) was deleted by the appellant Bank by Order
dated 11th March, 2014 while the proceedings were pending in LPA
before the High Court.
15. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the
employees of the appellant Bank, having served the Bank were covered
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
303
under the scheme which was applicable at the given time under the Act
1952 (prior to 1989). It is the appellant Bank which accepted the
recommendations of the State Government and solicited options from
the employees as to whether they wanted to opt for a pension scheme
which became applicable after the amendment was made under the
Rules 1978 and after a conscious decision, Rule 15(ii) was introduced, it
could not be justified to circumvent the impact of the amended rule and
thus create a situation which would have the effect of defeating the
rights which are conferred upon the employees to seek pension under
the rules which became applicable with effect from 1st April, 1989 and
finally held that the employees are entitled to regular pension including
revised rates of dearness allowance, to all the employees who became
member of the pension scheme under the Rules 1978.
16. When the matter travelled to the Division Bench of the High
Court, by that time, the amendment was made by an Order dated 11th
March, 2014 and Rule 15(ii) was deleted. The Division Bench, after
taking note of the submissions made by the parties observed that the
decision to frame the pension scheme was a conscious decision of the
appellant Bank taken in its own wisdom and corresponding rules were
introduced and made applicable from 1st April, 1989 and Rule 15(ii) was
deleted on 11th March, 2014. In the interregnum, the employees became
members of the pension scheme and were paid their regular pension for
sufficient time which cannot be defeated and taken away retrospectively
detrimental to their interest. The amendment which has taken away the
vested and accrued right of the employees to get pension and that too
with retrospective effect would be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution and disposed of the LPA with a declaration that amendment
dated 11th March, 2014 under Rules 1978 shall apply prospectively.
17. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated
29th July, 2019 became subject matter of challenge at the instance of the
appellant Bank and by the serving employees who have claimed that
their right to get pension may be affected in futuro, and have approached
this Court ventilating their grievances in the instant proceedings.
18. It may be relevant to note that before the High Court, at
different stages, different counter affidavits were filed by the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner(RPFC) with reference to the grant of
exemption after the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 became the part
of the Act 1952.
THE PUNJAB STATE CO-OP. AGRIC. DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.
v. THE REGISTRAR,CO-OP. SOCIETIES [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
19. It has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the RPFC
under the Act 1952 that earlier it was erroneously mentioned "granted
exemption from pension scheme", but that was a factually incorrect
statement recorded and the RPFC has made an unconditional apology
for making such a statement of fact. It is the admitted case of RPFC
that neither any application was filed by the appellant Bank seeking
exemption from the employees pension scheme nor it was granted or
refused.
20. The stand of the EPFC is that Employees' Provident Funds
Scheme, 1952 and Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 both are designed
to secure a minimum core of old age/terminal social security. Neither of
these schemes exhaust an employee's right to social security. According
to the EPFC, the bank's promise to supplementary pension outside of
EPF must be evaluated in that light.
21. It is further stated that the benefits under bank's pension scheme
can only be understood as supplementary and not substitutionary because
the bank's pension scheme did not provide for dependents' pension,
nominees' pension, childrens' pension or withdrawal benefits. This only
provides a far narrower pensionary cover to its employees. Its pension
scheme could not be considered for exemption under Section 17(1C) of
the Act.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant Bank submits that it has not
been considered by the High Court that the appellant Bank had framed
a pension scheme subject to approval of the competent authority. Even
though, the appellant Bank had not applied for seeking approval/exemption
from the authority, still the fact remains that in the absence of the approval
being granted by the competent authority, the retirees were entitled to
receive pension until the scheme remain in operation, i.e., upto 31st
October, 2013.
23. Learned counsel further submits that if the employees are
being permitted to get pension under the scheme of the Bank after 31st
October 2013 and also statutory pension from Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner under the Act 1952, indeed there shall be payment of
double pension which is in either way not permissible in law.
24. Learned counsel further submits that the employee is entitled
for pension but how the pension is to be computed, no one can claim any
vested/accrued right. It is not the case of the respondents that they are
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
305
not being paid pension. It was paid earlier under the pension scheme
introduced by the Bank from the year 1989 until it remained in force till
31st October 2013 and thereafter, the employees are entitled to get a
statutory pension as per the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 under the
provisions of the Act 1952. Thus, plea of vested right which has been
considered by the High Court is completely misplaced and as long as the
appellant Bank fulfils its statutory liability under the provisions of the Act
1952, which they are under an obligation to comply with, the employees
are not entitled to claim pension under the scheme introduced by the
Bank after it stands withdrawn with effect from 31st October, 2013 and
thus no vested/accrued right of the employee is in any manner has been
defeated and a finding recorded by the High Court to continue the bank
pension scheme after it stood deleted is not sustainable in law and
deserves to be interfered by this Court.
25. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance
on the judgments of this Court in Marathwada Gramin Bank
Karamchari Sanghatana and Another Vs. Management of
Marathwada Gramin Bank and Others1, State of Rajasthan Vs. A.N.
Mathur and Others2 and State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs.
Rajesh Chander Sood and Others3.
26. Learned counsel further submits that the pension scheme
introduced by the Bank later became financially unviable and the
number of retirees in comparison to the existing employees recruited
after 1st January, 2004 is almost three times and if the appellant Bank
is mandated to continue to make payment of pension under Bank
Pension Scheme, the Bank will become defunct and the contribution
towards pension made by the serving employees will be futile and they
will get nothing at the time of their retirement. The Bank has earned a
meagre profit in the later years and still, in the given circumstances, the
appellant Bank, if allowed to made over pension in terms of the judgment
impugned, there will be no option left except to close down the Institution
in such an eventuality and that apart it has created a wide gap of inequality
between the serving employees and the retirees without resorting to
exemption from the RPFC.
1 2011(9) SCC 620
2 2014(13) SCC 531
3 2016(10) SCC 77
THE PUNJAB STATE CO-OP. AGRIC. DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.
v. THE REGISTRAR,CO-OP. SOCIETIES [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
306
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
27. Learned counsel submits that the RPFC has initiated separate
proceedings under Section 7A of the Act 1952 for the year April 1989 to
March 2015 and for the year April 2015 to June 2017, imposing liability
on the Bank by an Order dated 14th September, 2015 and 31st August,
2017 respectively. At the same time, separate proceeding under Section
14B for damages and Section 7Q for interest were also instituted and in
terms of orders passed by the Authority, demand raised pursuant thereto
has been deposited by the appellant. In the given circumstances, the
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has recovered towards pension
fund contribution along with damages and interest for the period
commencing from April 1989 to August 2017. At the same time, the
appellant has been asked to pay pension to the retirees under the Bank
Pension Scheme in terms of the impugned judgment to the employees
who are covered at one stage under the scheme. It will almost be a
double payment to the employees which is over and above the payment
which was admissible to the employees in terms of statutory pension
scheme 1995 under the Act 1952 and that apart, there are categories of
employees who have settled their accounts under one time settlement
which was approved by the Government and if the Judgment is to be
implemented in rem, it will not only be a double payment of pension but
a great financial distress to the Bank which is otherwise not permissible
in law.
28. Per contra, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the
respondents submits that indisputedly the present respondents who were
writ petitioners before the High Court are the retired employees and
after amendment was made under the scheme of Rules 1978, they
became its member and started getting pension in terms of the scheme
under the Rules with effect from 1st April, 1989 and without any
justification, the appellant Bank unilaterally stopped full pension to the
respondent pensioners in the year 2010 and that was the stage when the
retired employees were constrained to approach the High Court wherein
it was held that these pensioners are entitled to pension in terms of the
scheme. To overcome the judgment dated 31st August, 2013 of the learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, by Order dated
11th March 2014, Rule 15(ii) was deleted and by deleting the said rule, it
has taken away the vested right of the retired employees and their service
conditions have been altered retrospectively to the detriment of the retired
employees which is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
307
29. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the scheme
under the Act 1952 is concerned, the employees pension scheme was
introduced under the Act 1952 for the first time in 1995 and it is nowhere
related to the pension scheme introduced by the appellant under its
Resolution No. 24 dated 22nd June, 1989 with effect from 1st April, 1989
and the appellant Bank neither sought any exemption under Section
17(1C) of the Act 1952 nor it was required for the reason that the Bank
introduced the pension scheme in the year 1989. At that time, there was
no such pension scheme under the Act 1952 and once it is made clear
that exemption was never sought by the appellant Bank, under the Act
1952, at least the vested right which has been accrued to the respondents
cannot be taken away retrospectively which is not sustainable and this
what the Division Bench has held in the impugned judgment.
30. The reliance has been placed on the Constitution Bench
Judgment of this Court in Chairman, Railway Board and Others Vs.
C.R. Rangadhamaiah and Others4 followed with U.P. Raghavendra
Acharya and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others5 and Bank
of Baroda and Another Vs. G. Palani and Others6.
31. Learned counsel further submits that more than half of the
respondents are in the age group of 73 to 80 years and one-third of the
retirees have already expired during pendency of litigation and it is the
appellant Bank who had in its own volition introduced the scheme and
the respondent employees have exercised their option to be governed by
the said scheme and the employees have also foregone their Contributory
Provident Fund. In the given circumstances, the rights which are conferred
and vested in favour of the respondent employees could not be divested
by the appellant in an arbitrary manner which is in violation of Article 14
of the Constitution.
32. Learned counsel submits that so far as the One Time
Settlement scheme is concerned, it was introduced to mitigate the problem
due to withdrawal of pension scheme as an interim measure under the
orders passed by the High Court. Since there was no option left to the
employees who became hand to mouth, some of them have accepted
under the One Time Settlement scheme but the Division Bench by its
4 1997(6) SCC 623
5 2006(9) SCC 630
6 2018 SCC Online SC 3691
THE PUNJAB STATE CO-OP. AGRIC. DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.
v. THE REGISTRAR,CO-OP. SOCIETIES [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
308
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
interim order made it clear that acceptance of one time settlement shall
be without prejudice to their legal rights, in the given circumstances,
what has been paid under One Time Settlement scheme to few of the
employees is always adjustable under the scheme to which they are
entitled for under the law. The scheme was in vogue for more than two
decades and it is not open for the appellant Bank to take away their
vested rights in an arbitrary manner and deprive them the benefit of
pension which is in vogue since 1989 so far as the retirees are concerned.
33. Mr. Siddharth, learned counsel for the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner submits that the appellant bank is covered under the
provisions of the Act 1952 and under the Act, three schemes have been
framed, firstly, Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952(EPFS) which
establishes a contributory provident fund under Sections 5 and 6 of the
Act. Employers and employees contribute to the provident fund in equal
measure at the prescribed rates notified by the authority competent under
the law from time to time. However, presently there is 12% employees'
monthly wages. Secondly, there is Employees' Pension Scheme
1995(EPS) scheme framed under Section 6A of the Act, 1952 which
replaces the earlier Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971(FPS).
Family Pension Scheme provided for pension to the dependents of such
employees who died in harness. EPS, on the other hand, is a
comprehensive pension scheme that provides superannuation pension,
early pension and dependents' pension. It is funded by diverting a part of
the employers' share of contribution made to EPFS into the pension
fund(presently 8.33% of monthly wages). Employees do not contribute
under EPS. The third scheme is Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance
Scheme, 1976. The Bank sought exemption from EPFS under Section
17(1)(b) and from EDLIS under Section 17(2A). The fate of exemption
and its consequence may not be relevant so far as the present dispute
raised in the instant proceedings is concerned, at the same time, it is
being specifically stated that the appellant Bank did not seek any
exemption from the operation of Employees' Pension Scheme after 16th
November, 1995.
34. Learned counsel further states that, in the interregnum, since
the appellant Bank failed to deposit its due contributions, first under the
Family Pension Scheme and later under the Employees Pension Scheme
for the period commencing from 1st April 1989 to 31st March 2015 and
from April 2015 to June 2017, separate proceedings were initiated under
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
309
Section 7A followed with damages under Section 14B and interest under
Section 7Q and final assessments have been made after affording
opportunity to the appellant Bank. Pursuant thereto, money has been
deposited but that has nothing to do with the pension scheme introduced
by the Bank which can only be understood as supplementary and not
substitutionary for the reason that the Bank Pension Scheme did not
provide for dependent's pension, children's pension or withdrawal benefits
and such benefits are designed only under the Employees Pension Scheme
1995 introduced under the provisions of the Act 1952.
35. Mr.