Telangana High Court: Setting Cut-Off Date for Receiving Enhanced retirement pension Benefits is Illegal & unconstitutional
TITLE – T. Hemanth Kumar Yadav and others vs Telangana State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd and others.
Decided On – 11.09.2023
24441 of 2020
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Surepalli Nadia
INTRODUCTION-
This writ petition is brought forward to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, more specifically one in the nature of a writ of mandamus to declare Clause 2 of item 49 of the resolution passed in the 49th meeting of the Board of management of the first respondent Bank held on September 15, 2020, as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, in addition to the fact that the same is against the established law of the land
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioners, who initially worked for Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd. before becoming employees of the first respondent on April 1, 2015, retired from service on various dates beginning in the year 2015 in a variety of positions at the respondent bank.
Since all of the petitioners in this case retired after reaching the retirement age and were fully eligible, they received pensions according to the schedule based on their post or designation. However, the first respondent Bank arbitrarily exercised its power by extending the benefits to the cadre of employees on the rolls as of 04.11.2011 while simultaneously negating them by setting a date to say that employees who are on the rolls as of 01.04.2020 are covered under the existing pension scheme. As a result, the petitioners who retired before April 1, 2020, are denied the benefit of Additional pension benefit, which is against Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Hence this petition lies
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
The Petitioners were unfairly denied the enhanced/additional benefits of the aforementioned pension scheme because they had already retired before the aforementioned date, i.e., 01.04.2020. As beneficiaries of the original scheme, the Petitioners specifically argue that since the Employees Performance Incentive-cumContributory Superannuation Benefit Scheme is a continuation of the original scheme, the Petitioners are entitled to the enhanced benefit under the new scheme. The petitioners allege discrimination and a violation of Article 14, and they came forward to the court and filed the current writ petition because they felt they had been wronged. The averments in the counter affidavit submitted by the respondents, that the resolution’s intent is for this new scheme to only apply to those employees who are on the rolls as of that date and covered by the current TSCAB EPICSBS; a reference to that date was therefore required. In the counter-affidavit, a specific position is taken in addition. The first respondent is further instructed to grant the petitioners the benefit of an additional pension in accordance with item 49 of the resolution adopted at the 49th meeting of the bank’s board of management within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order.
There will, however, be no cost-related order.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Steffi Desousa