Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

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