TO ALL CEC MEMBERS, Circular No. 39 / 2016

26/07/2016

PENSION OPTION TO OFFICERS RETIRED UNDER CRS Various issues pertaining to officers retired under CRS have been taken up by us through Central MRM like payment of leave encashment, Review of 1/3rd pension on CRS cases for the intervening period from 2009 to March, 2013 etc., and got resolved the issue of payment of leave encashment benefiting more than 300 CRS employees. Bank is not considering the request of pension option to those officers separated under CRS for the period between 1st pension option and 2nd pension option. There are various Supreme Court judgments in favour of such employees. On the basis of such judgments other similarly placed officers should have been given option for pension but they are forced to approach the court individually to get their legitimate demands. We have discussed this issue with the Management on various occasions and requested them to consider all such cases based on various judgments passed by courts. In order to bring the same to the focus of the top management and to get the issue resolved we had written a letter to our worthy MD & CEO on 21st July 2016. The content of the letter is reproduced for the information of members. With greetings,

Dilip Saha General Secretary “QUOTE” 21.07.2016 The MD & CEO, Punjab National Bank Head Office, New Delhi Madam, Reg: Denying Pension option to Compulsory Retired Employees. Bank has denied the option of pension to those officers who have retired by imposing punishment of CRS during the period 1995 to 2010. We would like to bring the following facts to your notice and request your intervention for giving pension option for those officers who have retired under CRS during the period 1995 to 2010. Banks are denying the pension option re-iterating their earlier stand in terms of joint note dated 27.4.2010 and the pension option guidelines. Officers who were eligible to opt for pension at the time of 1st option are being denied the 2nd option because they have been ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Regd. Office: 306, Kirti Mahal, 19, Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110008

compulsorily retired during the period of 1st option to 2nd option (i.e. 1995-2010). Although the 2nd option is just an extension of the 1st option, this is being denied without taking cognizance of the Supreme Court Judgments. This is not only against Article 141 of Constitution of India but also against the right to equality, forcing all similarly placed officers to approach the court for getting justice. Incidentally it is also against the National Litigation Policy to avoid/waste the precious time and resource of the judiciary. The brief facts are as under: 1. The issue of giving pension option to Compulsory Retired employees reached it finality when the Supreme Court dismissed Civil appeal no.4677 of 2010 of PNB Vs C.P. Krishnaswamy and others on 30.8.2011, upholding the decision of High Courts, and not inclined to interfere with their judgment and allowed pension option to compulsory retired petitioners. 2. The issue of not giving pension option to compulsory retired employees based on joint note dated 27.4.2010 came up for consideration of Supreme Court when Andhra Bank & Ors filed a SLP No.35389/2013 against the decisions of Divisional Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court WA 905/2012 dated 8.8.2013. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition on 5.09.2014. Another similar SLP No.35449/2013 filed by Andhra Bank was also dismissed along with the judgment on 5.09.2014. 3. Andhra Bank filed a Review Petition No.2954/2014 requesting for reviewing the above decision of Supreme Court in SLP 35389/2013 and 35449/2013. This Review Petitions was again dismissed along with another RP No.2889/2014 on 21.11.2015. As such the issue reached its finality and S.C. allowed pension option to compulsory retired employees by confirming the H.C. Decision that Bank cannot discriminate one set of retirees on penalty of compulsory retirement from the other set of retirees. 4. Another SLP filed by Punjab & Sind bank (No. 8506/2016) arising out of final judgment dated 18 Dec 2015 (LPA 1794 of 2015) passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in PSB Vs Surinderjit Singh was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 13th April 2016. 5. Bank should have honored these verdicts of Hon’ble Supreme Court & given pension option to all similarly placed employees in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. But we may point out that our bank has not done it so far. It is also against the National Litigation Policy. 6. It may not be out of place to mention that the following High Court has allowed writ petitions as detailed below keeping in view the decision of Supreme Court of India and Article 141 of the Constitution of India. I. High Court of Madras W.P. No.15766 of 2013 filed by D. Kalaichelvan Vs Union Bank of India in fact passed an order quashing Clause 7 of the Union Bank Circular No.5690 dated 27.8.2010 in so far as it denied the benefits to Compulsory Retired employees allowing the WP on 1.4.2015 on the same issue.

________________________________________________________________________________________________ Regd. Office: 306, Kirti Mahal, 19, Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110008

II. High Court of Punjab and Haryana while deciding the Civil Writ Petition 2553/2012 quoting the above Supreme Court Judgments allowed the Writ Petition of V.K. Vohra Vs Central Bank of India on December 22, 2015. III. M.P High Court Double Bench on 20th June 2016 dismissed another appeal of PNB against the decision of single judge in WP 7993/2012 Ashwani Kumar Sharma Vs PNB on 10th March 2016. 7. Article 141 of the Constitution of India stipulates as under: “141. The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. It will be agreed that purpose of Article 141 is to reduce multiple litigation on the same subject. However, on account of non-implementation of judgment of Supreme Court of India by all banks is giving rise to avoidable litigation which is against the Policy of Government of India. It will be agreed that in case judgments of Supreme Court of India are not complied with, there will be no end to litigation 8. There are so many cases on this issue alone are already pending in the various High Courts in respect of Public Sector Banks. Five Public Sector Banks, including our Bank has been so far involved on the same issue in different High Courts/ Supreme Court. 9. If each of the Banks start going up to Supreme Court by filing the Review Petitions, it is bound to lead to undesirable delay in providing justice to citizens of this country. 10. There is no system available as of now either with the Ministry of Finance or with IBA/Banks to keep a track of the Supreme Court decisions for their implementation as discussed above. In view of the foregoing, we request you to take a pragmatic view on compassionate ground and offer the option of pension to those officers who have retired under CRS during the period of 1995 to 2010 as is being permitted for officers on similar grounds retiring after 27.04.2010. Thanking you, Yours sincerely, Sd/Dilip Saha General Secretary ”UNQUOTE”

________________________________________________________________________________________________ Regd. Office: 306, Kirti Mahal, 19, Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110008