Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.K. MOHAMMED versus UNION OF INDIA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.K. MOHAMMED v. UNION OF INDIA - OP No. 27811 of 1999(J) [2006] RD-KL 698 (11 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 27811 of 1999(J)

1. M.K.MOHAMMED
... Petitioner

Vs

1. UNION OF INDIA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.N.SUGATHAN

For Respondent :SRI.T.R.RAVI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

Dated :11/09/2006

O R D E R

K. Thankappan, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P. No. 27811 of 1999
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 11th day of September, 2006



JUDGMENT

Petitioner, who is a retired employee of the 2nd respondent bank, challenges Ext.P3 order of the 2nd respondent, by which he was informed that the bank was not having a pension scheme under the Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 1993. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the award dated 30th April, 1990 of the National Industrial Tribunal, employees of the Regional Rural Banks will be entitled to claim parity with the officers and other employees of the sponsor banks in the matter of pay scales, allowances and other benefits. The award has been passed by the Tribunal on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court and if the award is implemented by the 2nd respondent bank, the petitioner will get the benefit of the pension. On the basis of the award the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent for getting the benefit of pension available in the sponsor bank, namely Canara Bank. By Ext.P3 reply the 2nd respondent stated that the bank was not having a pension scheme as stated by the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that on the basis of the judgment in O.P.No.1871/1997 of this Court, the service benefits available to employees of sponsor bank be extended to the employees of Regional Rural Banks. The petitioner relies on a decision of OP 27811/99 2 the Apex Court reported in South Malabar Gramin Bank V. Co-ordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees' Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank Officers' Federation and others (2001)4 SCC 101 to support the contention.

2. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that pension scheme has not been extended to any of the Rural Banks and hence, the employees of the Rural Banks are not entitled to claim that they should be extended the benefits of the Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1993. It is also submitted that the question of granting the benefit has to be considered by the Central Government and a decision has to be taken by the Central Government. As no such decision is taken by the Central Government, the 2nd respondent is not bound to implement the scheme adopted by the sponsor bank. It is further submitted that in addition to the benefit of contributory Provident Fund, a scheme called "Employees Pension Scheme, 1995" has been introduced in the 2nd respondent bank and the petitioner is only entitled to get the benefit under the contributory Provident Fund Scheme and the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.

3. This Court finds that the question of granting the benefit of pension scheme has to be considered by the Central Government and it is not seen that such decision has been taken by the Central Government to adopt the scheme. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit of pension scheme. If the OP 27811/99 3 petitioner has got a case that the Central Government has to issue such an order, he has to approach the Central Government. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that as the Central Government has not issued any order as provided under Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, the 2nd respondent is not bound to implement the pension scheme available in the sponsor bank.

4. In the result, the Original Petition is dismissed. K.Thankappan, Judge. mn.

K.Thankappan,J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P.No. 27811 /1999
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment 11-9-2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.