Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme 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

Latest Legal News