Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules That Even a Compulsorily Retired officer is Entitled for 2nd Pension Option

Time and Again Courts are giving judgments which are against IBA and Government of India in respect of the interpretation of the Joint Note and IXth Bipartite Settlement as far as 2nd Pension Option is  considered.  The latest in the series is the judgment of the High Court at Hyderabad.   The brief details of the same we are discussing below and the link for the full judgment is also given at the end.

In the Writ Petition No 9069 of 2011, the petitioner was a compulsorily retired officer from the service of the respondent i.e. Andhra Bank.   The question involved in this writ petition was as to whether the petitioner, who was compulsorily retired from service is entitled to opt for pension scheme of the bank in terms of the circular of Andhra Bank dated 01/09/2010 (which was based on the IBA's Joint Note and guidelines issued by IBA in this respect).

HC in its judgment has set aside the impugned order and asked Andhra Bank to reconsider the option exercised by the petitioner under the circular dated 01/09/2010 read with the Joint Note dated 27/04/2010, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the said circular within a period of 2 months. 

A perusal of the judgment clearly indicates that HC has held that IBA and Andhra Bank had wrongly interpreted the said Joint Note and denied the petitioner to opt for 2nd Pension option.   We give below some of the relevant parts of the judgment which are of prime importance for other bankers who have been denied the 2nd Pension option on one pretext or the other.   The judgment inter alia reads as under :-

Para 16 : "Dr Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the respondent - bank, however, defended the action of the bank on the ground that such retirees, who have retired compulsorily, were not included in the scheme, as there is no reference to such retirees.   I am, however, unable to appreciate the said contention in view of the fact that, first, the Joint Note as well as the circular refers to the retirees from the bank and the word retiree in generic term includes all categories of retirees.    Restricting the meaning of the said word only to those, who retired voluntarily or on superannuation, is not only against the object and purpose of the agreement under the Joint Note and the circular would also amount to reading something else therein.   Secondly, the definition of retirement, as extracted above, covers all cases of cessation of service.  Hence, the word 'retired" used in the Joint Note and circular has to be understood broadly, as per definition.  I am, therefore, of the view that the Joint Note and circular apply to all the retirees and if the contention of the learned standing counsel for the respondent-bank is accepted, it would amount to creating and classifying the retirees into two different classes viz, those who retired on superannuation or voluntarily and other category of those, who retired compulsorily, which would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India".

Download : Full Judgment : Writ Petition No 9069 of 2011 :- Sreeram Ramamurthy vs Andhra Bank