- (1.) The petitioner-Association seeks directions to grant pension commutation to erstwhile employees of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (hereafter "the bank"), pursuant to the adoption of pension regulations, by the latter (i.e. the bank) in 1996.
(2.) The petitioner allege that the Pension Regulations were adopted with many reservations on the part of the union representatives. The Indian Bank Association, (IBA) in consultation and approval by the Government of India directed all the banks to adopt the final Pension Regulations. The pension regulations of all banks were, therefore, identically worded with the only exception that the name of each bank was different. In exercise of the powers by Section 63 (1) and (2) (o) of the State Bank of India Subsidiary Banks Act 1959 ("the Act of 1959"), the bank (with the approval of RBI) framed the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995 ("BEPR-95" hereafter) providing for the establishment of and maintenance of pension fund and grant of pension for the benefits of employees of the bank. Regulation 3 (i)(a) provided that the regulations were to apply to employees who were in the service of the bank on or after the 1st day of January 1986 but had retired before the 1st day of Nov. 1993 and thereafter. By Regulation 3(1)(b) and (c), retirees were required to exercise the option in writing within one hundred twenty days from the notified date to become member of the pension fund and those so opting had to refund, within sixty days after the expiry of the said period of 120 days specified in Regulation 3 (1) (b) the entire amount of Bank's contribution to the provident fund including interest on it together with a further simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of settlement of the provident fund account till the date of refund of the aforesaid amount to the bank.
(3.) In terms of Regulation 3(9) notwithstanding anything contained in sub-regulation 3(1)(2)(3)(5) and (8) an option exercised before the notified date by an employee or the family of the deceased employee in pursuance of the settlement was to be deemed to be an option for the purpose of the chapter (in which the regulation was located). It is stated that before the regulations were made and made effective, options from retirees were taken in anticipation. However, those options cannot but be deemed to have been given as per the requirement of regulation 3(1)(2)(3) (5) and (8) of Regulations, it was not as if the retirees did not want to exercise the options as stipulated by Regulation 3. The petitioner states that the bank treated the option given prior to making of the regulations as the once given in terms of Regulation 3(1)(2)(3)(5) and (8).;