Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court Election Petition Must Be Presented By Petitioner In Person, Non-Compliance Renders It Liable To Summary Dismissal: Supreme Court Absence Of Recovery Or Evidence Of Stolen Property Precludes Conviction Under Section 394 IPC: 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