UCO BANK AND ORS. versus SANWAR MAL

UCO BANK AND ORS. versus SANWAR MAL

Employees who have resigned from bank service are not entitled to pension under UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995; Regulation 22 validly disqualifies resigned employees, does not create arbitrary classification under Article 14; pension scheme is a self-financing second retiral benefit, distinct from provident fund and may exclude resigned/dismissed employees.

Parties
Appellant: UCO Bank; Appellant: Oriental Bank of Commerce; Appellant: Bank of India; Respondent: Sanwar Mal; Respondent: Respondent in C.A. No. 607/2003; Respondent: Respondent in C.A. No. 1506/2003; Intervener: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed; impugned judgments/orders set aside.
Legal Topics
Pension Scheme, Retirement, Resignation, Eligibility Criteria, Article 14 Constitution
Service Law Banking Law Pension Scheme Retirement Resignation Eligibility Criteria Article 14 Constitution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UCO Bank

Appellant

Oriental Bank of Commerce

Appellant

Bank of India

Appellant

Sanwar Mal

Respondent

Respondent in C.A. No. 607/2003

Respondent

Respondent in C.A. No. 1506/2003

Respondent

Union of India

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employees who resigned from service are entitled to pension under UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995
  2. 2 Whether Regulation 22 creates arbitrary and unreasonable classification repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

Employees who have resigned from bank service are not entitled to pension under UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995; Regulation 22 validly disqualifies resigned employees, does not create arbitrary classification under Article 14; pension scheme is a self-financing second retiral benefit, distinct from provident fund and may exclude resigned/dismissed employees.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; impugned judgments/orders set aside.

Orders

  • No order as to costs.
  • In C.A. No. 607/2003, credit balance transferred to pension fund to be refunded to respondent employee with accrued interest, if not already refunded.