High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 1424/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL
Decision
The writ petitioner was appointed as part-time medical officer by the Reserve Ba nk Of India (RBI) for providing medical attention to its employees from the bank dispensaries vide letter dated 13.2.1989 and the petitioner continued to serve in the bank till he petitioner resigned from service with effect from 16.8.2006, which was accepted by the bank on 8.9.2006. After his resignation was accepted by respondents, the petitioner prayed for retrial benefits, including pension, a nd the request for pension was turned down by the respondents by letter dated 25 .2.2008. Even thereafter, the petitioner persisted his demand to get pension and other the pensionary benefits. The writ petitioner also refunded the provident fund deposits amount of Rs.2,30,024/- in the month of March, 2008. Now by filing this writ petition the petitioner is seeking a writ of Mandamus so as to direct the respondents to release pensionary benefits from the date of retirement and also the leave encashment benefit. Heard Sri J Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri KK Mah anta, learned senior counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the p leading of both the parties. Sri Roy, learned counsel submitted that the RBI introduced a pension sch eme w.e.f. 1.11.1990 by way of promulgating the RBI Pension Regulation Scheme, 1990 and as per eligibility criteria prescribed under the said regulation, the petitioner is entitled to pension benefits inasmuch as a part time employee is a lso entitled to pension, albeit, contract employees are not covered therein. Pre cisely, the issue in this writ petition is that whether the petitioner can be tr eated as a part time employee or a contract employee under the respondents. The respondents’ case is that vide a letter issued sometime in the secon d week of November, 1990 it was made clear to the writ petitioner that he was en gaged on contract basis for a period of 3 years and, as such, the petitioner is not covered under the pension scheme. As noted earlier the petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer on pa rt time basis vide letter dated 13.2.1989 and in the said letter there was no in dication that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis for a limited peri od. Though the respondents had issued a clarification vide letter issued in the second week of November, 1990 that the petitioner’s appointment was on contract basis for a period of 3 years, the relevant modification in terms and conditions of the appointment is as below: (cid:28)(2) Further the order of appointment as part time bank Medical Officer will be on contract basis for a period of 3 years subject to review ther eafter. (cid:29) In the affidavit of the respondents it has been further clarified that p art time employees are of two categories. The first category of part-time Bank M edical Officers (BMO) are appointed on ’scale wages’ basis whereas the second ca tegory of part-time BMOs are those persons who are paid fixed remuneration calc ulated on hourly basis and are not eligible toany other compensation from the ba nk. It appears from the initial appointment letter dated 13.2.1989 that the petitioner was appointed on hourly basis. Hence, he is the second category part- time BMO. Though the clarificatory letter issued in the second week of November, 1990 indicates that the initial appointment letter was for a period of 3 years but para-2 of the letter does not indicate that the status of the petitioner was converted from part-time BMO to contract employee. In my considered opinion the clarification can be read only as a conditi on that the performance of the petitioner in the service of the bank can be revi ewed after 3 years. Besides this, though the pension scheme was introduced w.e.f .1.11.1990 there was no indication in the bank’s clarificatory letter issued in the second week of November, 1990 that the petitioner will not be eligible to b e covered under the pension scheme. Under the Pension regulation one of the eligibility to be covered under the pension scheme is that a part-time employee should work minimum13 hours per week and he must complete 10 years of continuous service. There is no dispute by the respondents that the petitioner was engaged to render 15 hours service in a week and that the petitioner has completed nearly 18 years. In this way, the pe titioner has completed his requisite qualifying service. The above apart, in all provident fund deduction slips as well as in the increment slips there is an indication that the writ petitioner had opted for p ension instead of provident fund scheme. I have already mentioned earlier that a fter resigning from the job the petitioner had already refunded provident fund d eposit to the tune of Rs.2,30,024/- in the month of March, 2008. According to Sri Mahanta the fact of opting for pension was inadvertentl y reflected in the provident fund deduction slips as well as in the increment sl ips. Had it been a single mistake it could have been ignored. However, it appear s that the petitioner’s status was reflected in the pension category for years together i.e. till the date of his resignation. Beside this, the writ petitioner was also paid dearness allowance, house rent, local allowance and family allowa nce. In my considered opinion, all such allowances are usually concomitant to a regular service and not to that of a service on contractual basis. Ordinarily if a person is engaged on contract basis he is paid fixed remuneration. However , in the case before me the petitioner was paid all allowances admissible to reg ular employees. At the same time, the petitioner had rendered continuous service from the date of his initial appointment till the date of his resignation witho ut any break. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is eligible to get pension in terms of the Regulation. In the result the writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are directed to proceed to fix the pension of the petitioner. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.