Pension issues–judgment by Calcutta High Court:



Image result for Indian pensioner

This was a judgment delivered by Calcutta High Court in the case of State Bank of India & others Vs.Lina Ghosh & others. Thanks to Vipin Kalia who made the text of the verdict available to us. Actually the judgment by itself is not exhaustive as the readers normally expect and for that reason another post is to be released containing views of experts like KR Saini, H.Ganpathy and also Sujoy Kumar Ghosh analysing the pros and cons keeping in mind the issue of pension in State Bank in its totality. It was thought in the meantime necessary to apprise the pensioners and the readers of the above case to the notice of all concerned. May be some take it as an augury in relation to the pension issue as a whole.The one distinct snag detrimental to the interest of others is that this judgment is not to be treated as precedent. The contents of the judgment so made available to us read as under:

ORDER SHEET
APO No. 351 of 2013
WP No. 1317 of 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
Versus
LINA GHOSH & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon’ble JUSTICE BANERJEE
The Hon’ble JUSTICE RAJIV SHARMA
Date : 29th April, 2015.
Appearance:
Mr. A. K. Routh and Mr. Sudip Pal Chowdhury,
Ld. Advocates for the appellant.
Mr. Hironmoy Bhattacharjee and Mr. P. P. Mukherjee
Ld. Advocates for the respondent.
The Court :- This appeal would relate
to retrial benefit that the employees of the State Bank of
India were entitled. Sri Salil Kumar Ghosh, the original
respondent no. 1 was an awardee staff of the State Bank of
India. He retired on November 30, 2001. He approached this
Court in 2009, inter-alia, praying for revision of his
pension that the Bank denied vide orders dated May 18,
2007, June 24, 2009 and July 31, 2009. The learned Single
Judge by judgment and order dated September 13, 2012
allowed the writ petition and directed the Bank to
calculate the pensionary benefits of the writ petitioner on
the basis of the revised pay received by him under 7th
2
bipartite settlement as the pensionary benefits had been
disbursed to him since his retirement.
The bank, being aggrieved, preferred the instant
appeal. In 2012 the Bank was, however, not able to obtain
any interim order of stay. Hence, the authority complied
with the said order and the original respondent no. 1
enjoyed the benefit of the said order till his death. The
appeal has come up after his death when the deceased is
substituted by his widow, one son and one daughter. They
are now represented by Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharjee, learned
Advocate.
We have heard rival contentions. In our view, this
is a trifle issue that we need not go into at this stage
when the concerned employee is no more in this world. He
was getting a poultry sum of Rs.8500/- as pension. Even if
it was revised as per the order of the learned Judge, the
widow would not get the full benefit. She would be entitled
to the family pension as admissible under the Service
Rules. In such event, we do not wish to go into the
question raised by the Bank that would be left open to be
decided in an appropriate proceeding. We direct the Bank to
extend the benefit to the widow and the children, as the
case may be, as per the Service Rules. They must get family
3
pension accordingly. We make it clear, this would not be
treated as precedent.
This appeal is, thus, disposed of without any order
as to costs.
(BANERJEE, J.)
(RAJIV SHARMA, J.)

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Pension issues–judgment by Calcutta High Court:”

  1. THIS JUDGEMENT IS BASED ON THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES–1955 AND NOW STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND REGULATIONS–2014,IN THIS CONNECTION PLEASE REFER TO REGULATION NO23(1) WHICH CLEARLY SAY FOR THE COMPUTATION OF PENSION SHOULD BE ON THE LAST 12 MONTHS AVERAGE SALARY .BUT THIS REGULATION 23(1)HAS NOT BEEN ADHERED TO IN CASE OF ABOUT 30000 PENSIONERS RETIRED DRAWING SALARY AS PER 7TH BIPARTITE PAYSCALES IN FOCE FROM 1.11.1997/1.04.1998 TO 31,10,2002.THIS GROUP OF PENSIONERS ARE BEING PAID PENSION NOT ON THEIR LAST 12 MONTHS AVERAGE SALARY DRAWN BUT ON THE PRE-REVISED 6TH BIPARTITE PAY SCALES IN FORCE 1.11.1992/1.07.1993 TO 31.10.1997/31.03.1998 IN VIOLATION OF SBI PENSION FUND RULES OR RECENT REGULATIONS–2014.THEABOVE PAYMENT OF PENSION IGNORING THE LAST 12 MONTHS DRAWN SALARY IS BEING MADE ONLY ON ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS WITHOUT ANYBAMENDMENT TO SBI PENSION FUND RULES-1955.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  2. THE REVISION OF PENSION ON THE 7THBIPARTITE PAYSCALES AND PENSION @ 50% OF LAST 12 MONTHS AVERAGE PAY ARE OUR MAJOR TWOPENSION ISSUES.THESE TWO PENSION ISSUES WHICH RELATE TO STATE BANK OFINDIA ONLY AND NOT TO OTHER NATIONALIZED BANKS.NOW TWO JUDGEMENTS CAME IN APRIL 2015WHICH RELATES TO 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES ONLY ONE ON 6TH APRIL,2015 BY DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF KIRAN KUMAR JAIPURIERAND THIS ABOVE NOTEDJUDGEMENT IN FAVOUROFLEGAL HEIRS OF SHRI SALIL KUMAR GHOSH.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  3. SO FAR AS THE 7TH BIPARTITE PENSION ISSUE IN S.B.I IS CONCERNED,RELIANCE IS PLACED ON AIR 1983 SC130(SUPREME COURT)FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT” PENSION IS NO LONGER A BOUNTY BUT IS A RIGHT GOVERNED BY PENSION RULES”.ALTHOUGH PENSION HAS BEEN PAID TO 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES OF S.B.I,HOWEVER,IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF PAYSCALES UNDER THE 6TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT IS UNJUSTIUFIED.THE ABOVE NOTED JUDGEMENT IN FAVOUR OF LEGALHEIRS OF SHRI SALIL KUMAR GHOSH.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  4. THE ABOVE NOTED JUDGEMENT CAMEON THE BASIS OF MY ABOVE NOTED 3 COMMENTS BUT THIS JUGEMENT IS CONFLICTING AND A CONFUSED ONE BECAUSE AS PER SHRI SUJOY KUMAR GHOSH WHO IS FOLLOWING THIS COURT CASEFOR THE LAST 6MONTHS OR SO STATED IN THE BLOG ”A CURSORY LOOK ON PENSION ISSUES IN S,B,I”AS UNDER–”THIS IS A BLANT LIE GIVEN TOTHE COURT BYTHE BANK AND BANK PUT UP A DUMMY LAWER TO WINTHE CASE ON FALSE AND FABRICATED GROUNDS.”’
    FURTHER,ONE DISTANT SNAG DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTEREST OF OTHERS IS THAT THIS JUDGEMENT IS NOT TO BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT AND THIS FACTOR MAY JEOPARDISE THE STRENGTH OF THE OTHER PENSION ISSUES PENDING IN DIFFERENT COURTS OF LAW.

    The comment is partly modified.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  5. WE SHOULD CONTEND THAT ALL PENSIONERS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE PENSION UNDER THEV RELEVANT S.B.I EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES /S.B.I EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND REGULATIONS-2014 AND PENSIONERS ARE ONE CLASS IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR DATE(S) OF RETIREMENT AND THERE CANNOT BE MINI-CLASSIFICATION WITHIN THE CLASS, BUT DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT ACCORDED TO THOSE WHO HAD RETIRED PRIOR TO 1.11.2002 I,E DURING THE 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT
    (1.11.1997 TO 31.10.2002) THIS IS VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.OUR FEDERATION IS FIGHTING ON THESE ISSUES IN THE HIGH COURTS FROM THE YEAR 2000 BUT COURT CASES ARE PENDING IN THE HIGH COURTS.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  6. iF AS STATED BY MrGosh false information has been provided to the court , contempt proceeding should be initiated against the officials responsible.I am so sorry our Bank hasa stooped so low

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s