Kerala High Court Judgement dated 15.10.2019 in WP(C) No. 32386 of year 2015 – Inclusion of Special Allowance in calculation of Pension for those who retired from service after 31.10.2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 23RD ASWINA, 1941

WP(C).No.32386 OF 2015(W)

PETITIONERS:

1 MURALEE MOHANAN K.T
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.N.GOVINDAN NAIR, HOUSE NO.49/93-B, PADAM ROAD,
ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI-682026.

2 RAMESH KUMAR P.GANGADHARAN
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.GANGADHARAN, ASHWATHY, 35/2109C, FRIENDSHIP
NAGAR, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682025.

3 L.SACHITHANANDA SHENOY
AGED 60 YEARS S/O.R.LAKSHMANA SHENOY, H.NO.37/2437,
NARAYANEEYAM, VADHYAR ROAD, KALOOR SOUTH,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682017.

4 IBRAHIM MOHAMED HASHIM
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.MOHAMED HASHIM, 7/709-B. BANOOR HASHIM,
DARUSSALAM ROAD, KOCHI-682002.

BY ADVS.
SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN
SRI.V.K.PRASAD

RESPONDENTS:

1 CORPORATION BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGIND
DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.88, MANGALADEVI
TEMPLE ROAD, PANDESHWAR, MANGALORE-575 001,
KARNATAKA

2 THE TRUSTEE SECRETARY
CORPORATION BANK (EMPLOYEES) PENSION FUND, HEAD
OFFICE, P.B.NO.88, MANGALADEVI TEMPLE ROAD,
PANDESHWAR, MANGALORE-575 001, KARNATAKA

3 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO BANKING DIVISION,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110 001.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.GOPINATH CGC
R1 BY ADV. MS.VARGHESE JACOB
R2 BY ADV. MS.VARGHESE & JACOB
R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.GOPINATH, CGC

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.9.2019, THE COURT ON 15.10.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

JUDGEMENT

Dated this the 15th day of October, 2019

    Petitioners, who are retired officers of the 1st respondent Bank have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

i. To call for the records leading to Exhibits P5, P5(a), P5(b) and P5(c) and quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari as they are violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

ii. To declare that the condition mentioned in the note provided to item (6) of Annexure 1 of Exhibit P6 is null and void to the extent it affects the petitioners.

iii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to revise the basic pension of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Corporation Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 by taking into account the Special Allowance introduced in Exhibit P8 as part of pay for the purpose of Basic Pension.

iv. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to recalculate the commutation pension of the petitioners on the basis of the revised basic pension by including the special allowance introduced vide Exhibit P6.

v. to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the pension arrears recovered from the petitioners as per Exhibits P5, P5(a), P5(b) and P5(c).

    The 1st petitioner retired from service on 30.11.2013, the 2nd petitioner on 30.11.2014, the 3rd petitioner on 30.01.2015 and the 4th petitioner on 28.2.2015. The petitioners contend that their pension amounts have been substantially reduced when a wage revision was effected, due to the non-inclusion of the special allowance in the calculation of pay for the purpose of basic pension. It is stated that recovery has been effected from the arrears of commuted value of pension due to the petitioners by Exhibit P5 proceedings which is also under challenge.

    Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

    It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Exhibit P2 Pension Regulations are statutory in character. Regulation 2(d) of Exhibit P2 Pension Regulations defines average emoluments as the average of the pay drawn by the employee during the last ten months of his service in the bank. Pay is defined as basic pay including stagnation increments, if any, and all allowances counted for the purpose of making contribution to the Provident Fund and for payment of Dearness Allowance. It is stated that the petitioners had been granted pension, taking note of the average emoluments drawn as provided in Regulation 2(d). It is stated that the pay and allowances as well as the pension of retired employees underwent an enhancement on the basis of Exhibit P6 Joint Note dated 25.5.2015. It is stated that the petitioners had been granted pension and all allowances on the basis of the revised pay scale, but by Exhibit P5 proceedings, it appears that amounts had been recovered from the commutation arrears due to the petitioners. The petitioners were also given a statement of fixation, which revealed that amounts have been recovered from their commutation arrears, since their pension had been reduced due to the fact that the special allowances granted to them as an addition to pay was not reckoned for the purpose of calculating pension. It is stated that the action of the respondents in effecting a pay revision which results in reducing the pension payable to the petitioners, who had already retired from service as on the date of the Joint Note and in deducting amounts from the legally entitled amounts due to the petitioners is completely unwarranted and is arbitrary and unsustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and others v. Mahendra Nath Sharma [Civil Appeal No.1123 of 2015 and connected cases] to contend that pension is not bounty but a legal right of the petitioners which is accrued to them by virtue of long years of service and as such there can be no recovery from pension. The judgment of the Apex Court in Bank of Baroda and another v. G.Palani and others (Civil Appeal No.5525/2012 dated 13.02.2018) is also relied on.

    A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents. It is contended therein that the petitioners had retired from service on 30.11.2013, 30.11.2014, 30.01.2015 and 28.2.2015 respectively. It is stated that payment of pension is regulated by Exhibit P6 wage revision accord signed by Indian Banks Association and the Officers Associations. It is stated that a writ petition filed challenging one of the conditions of the Joint Note is not maintainable in view of the fact that the Joint Note is the result of a series of consultations and negotiations between the Banks and the Employees Association and it has to be seen as a package deal and cannot be challenged on piece-meal basis. It is stated that neither the Indian Banks’ Associations nor the Unions or Associations who had participated in the negotiations and had entered into the Joint Note are parties to the writ petition. It is contended that the decision of the Apex Court in G.Palani‘s case has no application, since in the instant case, there is no deduction from any amounts due to the petitioners under any statute and deduction is on account of the specific provision contained in the Joint Note. It is further stated in paragraphs 30 and 31 of the counter affidavit which read as follows:-

    It is submitted here that the pay structure of the employees of PSBs’ are fixed based on the Settlement arrived on time to time. The settlement arrived in the year 2015 is called 10th bipartite settlement/ Joint Note date 25.5.2015 same is applicable for 1.11.2012 to 31.10.2017. Before this settlement, the writ petitioners were drawing salary/pension from the Bank based on this settlement/Joint Note dated 27.4.2010. Hence, once the 10th bipartite settlement/Joint Note dated 25.5.2015 was entered, based on the PSBs’ were required to recalculate the salary/pensions based on the 10th bipartite settlement dated 25.5.2015.

    Based on the recalculation, the Bank has paid more amount as pension to the petitioners however the petitioners were eligible for arrears in commutation. Hence the difference amount was recovered from the arrears commutation and the petitioners got arrears on salary/commutation as mentioned in reply to para 6 of writ petition.“

    The learned standing counsel would place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Union Bank of India and others v. United Bank of India Retirees, Welfare Association and others [2016 KHC 6432] to contend that the Apex Court has held that a Joint Note is a package deal and it would be impossible to hold certain parts as good and accepted, while finding other parts to be bad. An interference made by the High Court in one of the provisions of a Joint Note with regard to applicability of dearness relief was found to be bad and was reversed by the Apex Court.

    I have considered the contentions advanced. The essential challenge raised in the writ petition is against the provision in the Joint Note to the extent it is contrary to the provisions of the pension regulations. The Apex Court in United Bank of India’s case (supra) has considered the applicability of a Joint Note in the case of workmen governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and held that the Note being a package deal, the petitioners who are governed by the provisions of the Note cannot challenge a specific provision thereof, while enjoying the special benefits granted by the Note.

    However, in Bank of Baroda v. G.Palani and others, the Apex Court drew a distinction where the aggrieved employees are officers who retired from the Bank in question. It was held that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable to such officers. It was held that the Pension Regulations framed under Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 are statutory in character. In the circumstances, in view of the definition of average emoluments at Regulation 2(d), Pay at Regulation 2(s) and the provision for calculating pension at Regulation 35, it was held that employees are to be paid pension as provided in the Regulations and no reduction from the same is possible, relying on the provisions of a Joint Note, which has no statutory force, unless the Regulations are appropriately amended. It was held in paragraph 28 of the judgment as follows:-

“28. Thus joint note/agreement could not have been in derogation of the existing statutory Regulations and regulation 2(s)(c) could not have been given retrospective effect. It is also apparent from the decisions of this Court in P.Sadagopan vs.Food Corporation of India [(1997) 4 SCC 301], that executive instructions cannot be issued in derogation of the statutory Regulations. The settled position of law is that no Government Order, Notification or Circular can be a substitute of the statutory rules framed with the authority of law. In Dr.Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors (2001) 5 SCC 482, this Court had reiterated that the settled position of law is that no government order, notification or circular can be a substitute of the statutory rules framed with the authority of law. In K.Kuppuswamy & Anr.v. State of Tamil Nadu (1998) 8 SCC 469, this Court has observed that statutory rules cannot be overriden by executive orders or executive practice. Merely because the Government had taken a decision to amend the rules, does not mean that the rule stood obliterated. Till the rule is amended, the rule applies.”

The amendment to Regulation 2(s) of the Pension Regulations was struck down as arbitrary and repugnant to Regulation 2(d), 35 and 38(1) and (2).

    In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prayers sought for in the writ petition are liable to be allowed. The petitioners are entitled to pension in terms of the Pension Regulations especially Regulation 2(d) and 35 thereof. The respondents are directed to revise the basic pension of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Corporation Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995 by taking into account the Special Allowances introduced in Exhibit P6 as part of pay for the purpose of Basic Pension. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to recalculate the commutation pension of the petitioners on the basis of the revised basic pension by including the special allowance introduced vide Exhibit P6 and to refund the pension arrears recovered from the petitioners as per Exhibits P5. P5(a),P5(b) and P5(c). The necessary shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-
Anu Sivaraman, Judge

The post Pensioners eligible for Special Allowance – Kerala High Court Judgement appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

The Indian retirement system has been ranked last in the global pension index, according to a Mercer report. Denmark has been rated as the country with the best retirement system globally, while Australia, Germany, Japan, Singapore and the UK have increased their pension age to offset the increase in life expectancies.

India’s index value fell from 43.5 in 2014 to 40.3 in 2015, primarily because of a recent review conducted by the Economic Intelligence Unit that showed a material reduction in its household savings rate.

The Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index (MMGPI) report 2015 is now in its seventh year, and has measured 25 retirement income systems against more than 40 indicators, under the sub-indices of adequacy, sustainability and integrity. The report covers almost 60% of the global population, and also suggests how governments can provide adequate and sustainable benefits that protect their citizens against longevity risk, ie. the risk of their aging population outliving their savings. This year’s MMGPI looked beyond the annual rankings to observe changes over the last seven years and assess which pension systems will continue to deliver and which ones are at risk.

“The National Pension System (NPS) is gradually gaining popularity in India. Continuing to improve education and communication will help increase coverage of pension arrangements for the working population in the organised sector, particularly popularising the corporate model of NPS among Indian employers,” said Anil Lobo, India business leader for retirement, Mercer India.

Author of the report and senior partner at Mercer, David Knox, said, “Implementing the right reforms to improve pension systems and provide financial security in retirement has never been more critical for both individuals and societies.”

The Index is used internationally both to highlight the relative strengths of pension systems and to identify opportunities and options for improvement.

Suggested measures to improve India’s system include introducing a minimum level of support for the poorest aged individuals, increasing coverage of pension arrangements for the unorganised working class, introducing minimum access age so that it is clear that benefits are preserved for retirement purposes, and improving the regulatory requirements for the private pension system.

The Index looks objectively at both the publicly funded and private components of a system as well as personal assets and savings outside the pension system. It is published by the Australian Centre for Financial Studies (ACFS) in conjunction with Mercer and is funded by the Victorian State Government.

Source : The Economic Times

The post Indian retirement system ranks last in global pension index: Mercer report appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

Definition of One Rank One Pension as per Government order issued by MoD (DoESW) : The principle of OROP implies that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length oi service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners.

No.12(01)/2014-D(Pen/Pol)
Ministry of Defence
Deptt. of Ex-Servicemen Welfare
D (Pension/Policy)

Sena Bhawan.
New Delhi the 24th April. 2014

ORDER

As decided in the meeting on OROP chaired by Hon’ble RM on 22.04.14, a Working Group is constituted as follows to finalize the modalities of implementation of OROP based on the principle specified in the previous meeting on OROP held on 26.02.14. The principle of OROP implies that uniform pension be paid to the Armed Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension to be automatically passed on to the past pensioners.

2. The composition of the Working Group would be as follows:

(i) Controller General of Defence Accounts Chairperson
(ii) Jotnt Secretary (SSW) Member
(ill) Joint Secretary (E). Deptt of Defence Member
(iv) Addl. FA (Defiance Finance) Member
(v) Representatives of the three Services Member
(vi) Addl CGDA Member
(vii) PCDA (P). Allahabad Member

3. The Terms of Reference of Working the Group are as follows:-

(i) To examine the proposal on implementation of OROP which was presented by the Services in the meeting on 22.04.14 to enable CGDA to prepare DGL after due deliberation on all aspects.

(ii) To work out the detailed financial implications.

4. CGDA would finalise the DGL and submit it to D/o ESW, MOD along with financial implications thereof within three weeks from the date of this order.

5. Since substantial increase is anticipated in expenditure on OROP, FA (DS) would thereafter seek additional funds as per requirement.

6. This issues with the approval or the Competent Authority.

sd/-
(Chahan Ram)
Deputy Secretary (Pension)

Source: Aerial View

The post Principle of OROP as per Government order issued by D/o ESW, MOD on 24.4.2014 appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.

No.4/4/2013-P&PW (D)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSIONS
(DEPARTMENT OF PENSION & PENSIONERS’ WELFARE)

3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan
New Delhi-110 003.
Dated the 8th July, 2013

To

Shri Harchandan Singh, Secretary General,
32, Phase-6,
Mohali-160055.

Sub:- Appeal for revision of fixed medical allowance for the Central Govt. Pensioners.

Sir,

Please refer to your letter dated 23/6/13 on the above mentioned subject. Comments item concerning this Desk is as under

2. The Govt. had on the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission sanctioned Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) @ Rs.100 p.m. as in the year 1997. After 6th Central Pay Commission this amount was raised to Rs.300 p.m. w.e,f. 1/9/2008. The demand for further enhancement of FMA was raised during the meeting with representatives of staff side (JCM) on pensionary matters held on 18/5/11. The demand has been examined in great detail. In view of the fact that the FMA was increased three-fold from Rs.100 to Rs.300 p.m. in May, 2010 (effective from 1stSeptember 2008) at a substantial cost to the exchequer, any further upgraded increase in FMA at this stage may not be appropriate given the constraint on the fiscal side. Govt. is in the interim, also contemplating introduction of Central Govt. Employees and Pensioners Health Insurance Scheme to meet the health care requirement of Central Govt. employees and pensioners. Therefore, the demand for any enhancement of FMA cannot be accepted at this juncture.

Yours faithfully,
(Deepa Anand)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
# 24644636

Source: http://www.rscws.com/pdfdocs/Govt_rejects_demand_for_higher_FMA_to_Pensioners.pdf

The post Appeal for revision of fixed medical allowance for the Central Govt. Pensioners appeared first on CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NEWS.