HIGH LIGHTS-JUDGMENT by the HIGH COURT of KERALA in WP- on 25-09-2013

HIGH LIGHTS-JUDGMENT BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP- on 25-09-2013

VIJAYA BANK RETIREES ASSOCIATION Vs. VIJAYA BANK

This WP is filed by Vijaya Bank Retirees Association (VBRA) challenging theExt.P-10 order passed by the CMD of the Vijaya Bank denying their members benefit as per Regulation 29(5) of the VB (Employees)Pension Regulation,1995……

Ext.P-4 is the judgment in Mohandas’ case and there cannot be any doubt regarding the position laid down therein…..Taking into account the law laid down by the SC in Mohandas’ case, I have no hesitation to hold that ,the said case squarely applies to the facts in the present case………………….

At this stage, this court can only apply the judgment in Mohandas’ case to the fats of the present case as the respondent Bank is unable to point out ant difference in the nature of VRS-2000 as well as the Pension Regulations which was considered by the SC. No material is produced to show that VRS-2000 and Pension Regulations which were considered by the SC in Mohandas’ case were different from VRS-2000 and Pension Regulations that is the subject matter of the present case.Therefore as matter stands now the principle laid down in Mohandas’ case squarely applies and Ext P-14 and Ext.P-15 circulars will not stand in the way of the petitioners claim.In the event of SLP being rejected by the SC necessarily Mohandas’ case would apply to the factual situation here and the members of the petitioners’ Association are entitled for the benefits arising out of the said judgment…….

Thereforethere is no legal impediment for the respondent Bank to apply the principle of law laid down in Mohandas’ case……The SLP is admitted by the SC in the judgment issued by the Mumbai High Court….Therefore any direction issued in his case would be subject to the result of the SLP before the SC.

On the matter of delay in filing the WP challenged by the Bank…..It is settled position of law that a claim for pension is continuing cause of action, it cannot be held that they have kept quite for several years altogether. It is not an instance where large number of persons will be affected as the re-computation of the pension account….The subject matter of the WP is for re-fixing the pension on the basis of the benefit of additional qualifying service in terms of Regulation 29(5) of Pension Regulations.

I am of the view thatfailure to pay pension as per VRS -2000 read with Regulation 29 (5) is a continuing wrong and therefore delay in filing the WP will not stand in the way of the Petitioner Association making the claimas aforesaid.

Hence I am of the view thata declaration can be given in the matter,but the same will be subject to the result in the SLP pending before the SC.

In the result WP is disposedofas under:

(1)Ext.P-10 is quashed.

(2) Themembers of the Associationwho have completed 20 years’ of service and opted for VRS-2000 and accepted by the Bank are also entitled for the benefit of Regulation 29 (5) of the Pension Regulations in order to enable them to add 5 years’ of qualifying service. However the recalculation of the pension on this basis shall be subject to the final outcome of the judgment in SLP No.20521 /2009 pending before the SC and the members of the petitioner Association can make a claim for the increased pension only after the disposal of the said SLP.

Adv.P.A.Aziz