NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11337 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.15250 OF 2013]

ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS.                     APPELLANT(S)                                 VERSUS

ISHWAR SARAN & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

Leave granted. 2. Heard  Mr.  Dhruv  Mehta,  learned  senior  counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Jitendra Sharma, learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the respondents/employees. 3. The respondents/employees of Appellant No.1 Bank had approached the High Court praying for a direction for  payment  of  pension  under  the  Allahabad  Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995 and also family pension in the case of some of the employees. 4. It  is  the  contention  of  the  learned  senior counsel appearing for the appellant(s)/Bank that the Scheme under the 1995 Regulation is not available to the  respondents/employees  for  the  main  reason  that there was no option exercised by them and as per the option exercised by them under the 2010 Scheme the Bank  has  sanctioned  pension  and  all  the

1

respondents/employees are in receipt of pension under the  2010  Scheme.  According  to  the  learned  senior counsel appearing for the respondents, it is a case not of no option but a case of belated option and the respondents/employees  are  receiving  pension  only under protest. 5. Be that as it may, we find that the High Court has not gone into any of these aspects and several other  contentions  available  to  both  the  parties, apparently for the reason that the High Court chose to rely upon two earlier orders of the High Court dated 5.10.2005 and 18.5.2007. 6. Having regard to the serious disputed issues in the case and the contentions raised by the parties, we  are  of  the  view  that  the  matter  needs  to  be remitted to the High Court so as to enable the High Court to consider the matter on merits. 7. Having regard to the contentions raised by both the parties, we make it clear that the contentions of the  appellant  that  the  earlier  judgments  have  no application to the facts of this case will also be necessarily looked into by the High Court.  Since it is an old matter and also being a pension case, we request  the  High  Court  to  dispose  of  the  writ petition expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 8. We make it clear that we have only referred to the minimum facts and we have consciously refrained from referring to other contentions, since this Court feels that all the contentions available to both the parties should be left open to be decided by the High Court. 9. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

2

10. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 11. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI]  

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 07, 2017.

3