Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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

Latest Legal News