Bombay High Court Grants Relief to 95-Year-Old Former Bank of Maharashtra Chairperson
The Bombay High Court recently granted relief to a 95-year-old man, a former Chairperson and Managing Director of Bank of Maharashtra who retired in 1983 after serving for over 37 years from 1947 but could not avail pension as he was not entitled to the same as per the Bank’s scheme.
A division bench of Justices Nitin M Jamdar and M M Sathaye earlier this month passed an order on a plea by a 95-year-old former chairperson and managing director of the bank. The petitioner, through advocate Amit Gharte, informed the court that he served as chairperson and MD of the bank from 1977 till his retirement on September 20, 1983 and had received awards for the bank’s performance during his tenure.
After retiring in 1983, he received gratuity, however no pension was paid to him in absence of any pension scheme at the time. Later, a scheme was introduced in 1995 called the Bank of Maharashtra (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, which stated that those employees who were in service on or after a cutoff date of January 1, 1986 would receive pensionary benefits.
As the petitioner had retired prior to the said cut-off date, he was not entitled for the said benefits, and therefore the plea in the HC challenging the “arbitrary” cut-off date.
Advocate Gharte argued that there was no rational nexus providing the cut-off date creating two classes of persons receiving the pension. However, the bank argued that the Supreme Court had passed a verdict rejecting the challenge to the cut-off date.
Gharte argued that his client had also sought enhancement of ex-gratia payment as it was inadequate and should be at least comparable to the pension. However, the bank said there was no specific regulation for the increase. The bench noted, “With these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the case of the Petitioner should be considered by the Bank on a different basis than other employees considering his contribution and Respondent/Bank should consider extending reasonable monetary assistance to the Petitioner in his advanced age.”
The court directed the Managing Director of the bank to “personally look into the petitioner’s matter, and if it is feasible, extend all necessary benefits by considering it as a ‘special case.”
Source: [The Indian Express](insert link here)
