The judgment was delivered in a bunch of appeals against a Division Bench verdict of Punjab & Haryana High Court which had ruled in favour of the employees of a bank.
In this case, the respondents were retired employees and members of the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited, Chandigarh.
They were earlier the members of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and were governed by the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Land Mortgage Banks Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1978.
They became members of the Bank Pension Scheme, which was introduced by the bank on April 1, 1989 upon the recommendation of the Punjab Pay Commission.
The administrator of the appellant Bank by its resolution dated June 22, 1989 decided to implement the recommendations of the State government and as a consequence, the pension scheme for the employees and officers in the 1978 Rules was introduced with effect from April 1, 1989.
Accordingly, the 1978 Rules were amended and Rule 15(ii) was introduced authorizing the Board of Directors to formulate pension scheme with the prior approval of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab. Pursuant to that, an amendment was made with an option that such of the employees who opt for the rules (pension scheme) shall be covered by these rules. At the given time, such employees who do not opt for these rules shall be governed by 1952 Act, it was stated.
All the respondent employees were given the option to become members of the pension scheme on retirement from service way back in 1989, and they continued to derive the benefit of pension after they had opted for it. They continuously derived benefit until the year 2010 when the litigation started after the appellant bank stopped making payment of pension in terms of the bank pension scheme.
Later on, the Bank took a decision by deleting Rule 15(ii) of pension scheme by an amendment dated March 11, 2014 and that became the cause of grievance of the employees leading to the present appeal.
The question before the apex court was regarding the scope concept of vested or accrued rights of an employee and whether such vested or accrued rights can be divested with retrospective effect by the rule making authority.
Source: Barandbench
