Written By DIKSHA GUPTA ,2nd Sem OF NIMS SCHOOL OF LAW
PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK V. THE REGISTER, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHERS
| CASE NAME | PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK V. REGISTRAR SOCIETIES AND OTHERS |
| CITATION | 2022 SSC Online SC 28 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 11 JANUARY 2022 |
| CASE TYPE | CIVIL APPEAL |
| APPELLANT | PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK |
| RESPONDENT | THE REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHERS |
| BENCH | AJAY RASTOGI, ABHAY S. OKA |
| COURT | SUPREME COURT |
Case Number – Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) No. 12864 Of 2020
FACTS OF THE CASE
- A Scheme was introduced named ‘Bank Pension Scheme’ on 1st April, 1989. The scheme was for the employees of Appellant Bank. The respondents are original Petitioners and the bank has raised an appeal in the Supreme Court of India after the judgement of High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Chandigarh) in 2019 in the case. The employees were enjoying pension till 2010 under the scheme.
- The B.O.D of Appellant bank amended their some rules regarding the scheme of pension on 29th may 2010 in a meeting. It was mentioned that ‘Pension scheme will not be applicable in case of employees employed on or after 1st January 2004.’ It had many changes regarding the pension scheme.
- The new amended scheme was sent for approval to the Registrar, cooperative societies but registrar rejected the changes and approval was not given. But the B.O.D. of Appellant Bank continued with the new scheme and cancelled the old pension scheme.
- Then the employees went to High Court under Article 226 of the constitution by a writ petition because the amendment was stopping their payment of pension. The final decision was in the favour of employees. The division bench considered it the violation of Article 14 of The Constitution of India, Appellant Bank approached Supreme Court of India.
ISSUE RAISED
- Whether the employees are entitled to get full pension under Bank Pension Scheme or not?
- Whether the rights of employees can be divested by a law making authority?
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
- Appellants argued that the employees are getting pension under Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and they are not entitled to get pension twice. The appellants are fulfilling their liabilities.
- The Appellants stated that they are not able to pay pension to the employees under Bank Pension Scheme because of unavailability of resources. The bank would become defunct if the bank provide pension under this pension scheme.
- The petitioner mentioned judgements of some cases in the argument. Marathwada Gramin Bank Karamchari Sangathan and Another V. Management of Marathwada Gramin Bank and Others, State of Rajasthan V. A.N. Mathur and Others and State of Himachal Pradesh and Others V. Rajesh Chander Sood and Others – these cases were mentioned by Appellants in the court.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
- The respondents argued that the Bank stopped full pension of pensioners without any justification in the year 2010. The employees were getting pension under Bank Pension Scheme since 1989. The employees are retired and half of them are in the age group of 73 to 80 years and many of them have already expired during the time period of litigation.
- The High Court also accepted that pensioners should get full pension under bank pension scheme and the amendment of Appellant Bank was violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
- The respondents clearly stated that the Bank had given the option to become a member under the Bank Pension Scheme to the employees and they were getting this benefit since 2010. Now, the Appellant Bank has cancelled this without any justification and interest of employees.
- The respondent mentioned these cases mainly in the arguments – Railway Board and Others V. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and Others, U.P. Raghavendra Acharya and Others V. State of Karnataka and Others, Bank of Baroda and Another V. G. Palani and Others.
JUDGEMENT
- The Supreme Court said that the respondent employees are payable of the pension under Bank Pension Scheme because all of them had already retired before the date of amendment.
- The court observed that non availability of financial resources is not an excuse in taking away the rights of employees and mentioned that each of the employees who are members of Bank Pension Scheme must be given pension under the scheme.
- The court said “The pension which is being paid to them is not 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 the favour.”
- The court also mentioned that it was the violation of fundamental rights of employees under Article 14, 16, 19(1) (f) and also article 31(1) of the Constitution of India. The employees right are also protected by the Employees Pension Scheme Act of 1952 and employees have right to get pension by the provisions of this act.
- The appeal was dismissed by the court.
CONCLUSION
- In this case the bank pension scheme was introduced by Bank in 1989 and pension was paid to the employees till 2010 but board of directors of bank decided to amend the scheme. This was not beneficial to retired employees of the Bank and they went to High court against the new amended scheme and in 2014 they cancelled the scheme. High court decision was in the favour of employees. The Bank appealed against the decision in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court gave decision in the favour of employees.
- This case had a great judgement regarding the pension for the retired employees and senior citizens. The pension is a right of an employee and pension must be paid even in the non availability of resources. The law making authority can not violate the right of employees. It is duty of an institution to make resources and pay their employees.
