9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Pension Scheme to Resigned Employees 2. Interpretation of Resignation vs. Retirement 3. Validity of Regulation 22 under Article 14 of the Constitution 4. Nature of Pension Scheme as Self-financing Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Pension Scheme to Resigned Employees: The core issue revolves around whether employees who resigned from service are entitled to pension benefits under the UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. The respondent resigned in 1988 and sought to opt for the pension scheme introduced later. The bank declined this option, citing Regulation 22, which entails forfeiture of past service for those who resigned, thus disqualifying them from pension benefits. 2. Interpretation of Resignation vs. Retirement: The judgment elucidates that the terms "resignation" and "retirement" carry distinct meanings. Resignation can occur at any time, even shortly after appointment, leading to a complete cessation of the master-servant relationship. In contrast, retirement occurs after attaining a certain age or completing qualifying service, maintaining the relationship for retiral benefits. The pension scheme is designed primarily for retirees, whose provident fund balances are typically larger, ensuring the scheme's financial viability. Regulation 22 explicitly disqualifies resigned employees from pension benefits, reinforcing the distinction in service jurisprudence. 3. Validity of Regulation 22 under Article 14 of the Constitution: The respondent argued that Regulation 22, which disqualifies resigned employees from pension benefits, constitutes arbitrary and unreasonable classification, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the court found merit in the bank's argument that the pension scheme, being self-financing and actuarially calculated, necessitates such classification to ensure financial sustainability. The court held that the regulation does not contravene Article 14, as it is based on rational criteria related to the scheme's financial structure and objectives. 4. Nature of Pension Scheme as Self-financing: The judgment emphasizes that the pension scheme is self-supporting, relying on contributions from both the bank and employees. It is not dependent on budgetary support and is governed by detailed regulations ensuring its financial health. Regulation 22's disqualification of resigned employees is integral to maintaining the scheme's viability, as these employees may not have sufficient provident fund balances to support the pension fund. The scheme is designed to provide a second retiral benefit, distinct from the earlier provident fund scheme, and aims to manage its corpus effectively through actuarial assessments and investments. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the lower courts' judgments. It upheld Regulation 22, confirming that employees who resigned are not entitled to pension benefits under the UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. This regulation does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as it is based on reasonable and necessary financial principles to sustain the self-financing pension scheme. The court also clarified that Regulation 22's disqualification is not a penalty but an eligibility criterion for the pension scheme. The appellant bank was directed to refund the provident fund balance with accrued interest to the respondent if not already done.
|
