SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Rajendra Babu and R.C. Lahoti, JJ.

C.A. No. 6959 of 1997. D/d. 5.4.2000

Bank of India - Petitioner

Versus

Indu Rajagopalan - Respondent

Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, Regulations 2(4) and 29 - Pension scheme framed came into force w.e.f. 1.11.1993 is aplicable to Bank employees which also provides for voluntary retirement - Dispute regarding applicability of Rules to those employees who have voluntarility retired w.e.f. 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1993 - Where there is no distinction, authorities having sought to make distinction and not applied regulation framed subsequent to their retirement - High Court gave appropriate directions - No interference in called for.

[Para 3]

ORDER

R.C. Lahoti, J. - Delay condoned. Leave granted in SLP(C) 7639 of 1999.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants at length and having gone through the judgments of the learned Single Judge and of the Division Bench of the High Court, we are satisfied that the view taken by the High Court is fair and reasonable.

3. All that has happened is that in such of the Banks where a scheme for voluntary retirement was available, certain employees retired under that scheme. Now a comprehensive Pension Scheme has been framed which came into force w.e.f. November 1, 1993 and applicable uniformly to all Bank employees which provides for voluntary retirement as well. The applicability of these Rules to those employees who have voluntarily retired w.e.f. January 1, 1986 to October 31, 1993 is raised in these matters. It is not possible for Shri V.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel who appears for the appellants to point out that there is any significant financial or other burden or difference so far as those who had voluntarily retired and those who had ordinarily retired. In that even where there is no distinction, the authorities having sought to make a distinction and not applied the regulations framed subsequent to their retirement, the High Court has given appropriate directions. We also notice that the number of employees who have retired in this manner is also very small. Therefore we think no interference is called for in these appeals. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

Appeals dismissed.