Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act

Regulations Binding, Petitioners Waived Rights by Opting In: Calcutta High Court Upholds Pension Commencement Date

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court affirms April 1, 2018, as start date for BGVB retirees’ pensions, dismissing claims of constitutional violations and regulatory anomalies.

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by retired employees of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (BGVB), who challenged the commencement date of their superannuation pension. The petitioners argued that their pension should begin the day after their retirement, rather than from April 1, 2018, as dictated by the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 2018. The court, led by Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, upheld the regulations, emphasizing that they were formulated following due process and in consultation with stakeholders.

The petitioners, retired employees of BGVB, argued that their pensions were unjustly set to begin on April 1, 2018, rather than the day after their respective retirement dates. They contended that this was contrary to Supreme Court directives and relevant pension regulations. They also pointed out anomalies in the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 2018, and claimed their rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution were violated.

The court found that the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 2018, was formulated after consultation with relevant stakeholders and was approved by NABARD and the Central Government. The court stated, “The regulations were properly formed in consultation with stakeholders and approved by NABARD and the Central Government. The petitioners had agreed to the terms by opting into the pension scheme and refunding the corpus to the Pension Fund.”

Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta emphasized that the regulations were binding on the petitioners who had opted into the pension scheme and thus waived their rights to challenge the terms. “Each of the petitioners has equivocally signed adjudication to accept the pension from the date when notified by the bank,” he noted.

The court referred to various rulings on pension parity between Regional Rural Banks and Nationalized Commercial Banks, affirming the regulatory process and compliance with Supreme Court directives. “The regulations were found consistent with legal standards and past judgments upholding parity in pay and pension between Regional Rural Banks and their sponsor banks,” the court observed.

Constitutional Challenge:

Regarding the petitioners’ claims of violation of their rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300A, the court found no merit, stating, “The regulations were uniformly applied and the petitioners were not deprived of due process or property without law.”

The Calcutta High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition underscores the binding nature of the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 2018, and the proper formulation of these regulations in compliance with judicial directives and stakeholder consultation. By affirming the regulations, the court has reinforced the legal framework governing pension commencement dates for retired employees. This decision is likely to influence future cases related to pension disputes, ensuring consistency and adherence to established regulations.

 

Date of Decision: 02.07.2024

Namita Das & Others vs. Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank

Similar News