Anil Kumar Verma & Ors vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors

Held

The Court rejected the prayer for waiver of GST, stating no provision was shown to demonstrate the levy was contrary to law or could be waived. Regarding the challenge to the insurance premiums, the Court held that the 10th Bi-partite Settlement clearly stipulated that benefits for retirees would be subject to payment of a stipulated premium, and the contribution amount was to be decided by the respective banks. The Ministry of Finance's 2012 letter was advisory, indicating banks 'may consider' group insurance policies, not a directive to bear premiums. Similarly, the IBA's October 2015 Circular was advisory regarding terms and conditions, and did not preclude future premium increases. The Court found no merit in the argument that premiums for retirees were discriminatory, noting that insurance companies are at liberty to set premiums annually and that retirees, being of old age, ordinarily face greater medical risks. The Court also noted the scheme was optional. Consequently, prayers (2) and (3) concerning bearing premiums and parity with serving employees were dismissed.

Facts

Petitioners, retired bank employees, challenged the increased health insurance premiums for the period November 1, 2019, to October 31, 2020, as fixed by circulars from Canara Bank, UCO Bank, and Punjab National Bank. They argued these premiums were higher than those for serving employees and sought to have the banks bear the premiums from staff welfare funds, or at least bring retiree premiums in line with serving employees. They also contended that retirees were initially induced to opt for the scheme with the promise of similar premiums and that certain benefits like domiciliary treatment were later made chargeable only for retirees, creating discrimination. The respondents argued the petitions were infructuous as the scheme was optional and renewed annually, and that the 10th Bi-partite Settlement allowed banks to decide retiree contributions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the circulars issued by the respondent banks fixing higher insurance premiums for retirees compared to serving employees are discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the terms of the 10th Bi-partite Settlement? (Turning on Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Clause 20 of the 10th Bi-partite Settlement). 2. Whether the respondent banks are obligated to bear the petitioners' insurance premiums from staff welfare funds as per the Ministry of Finance's 2012 letter? (Turning on the interpretation of the Ministry of Finance's 2012 letter). 3. Whether the respondent Union of India should be directed to revisit the issue of GST and consider its waiver for health insurance? (Turning on the provisions related to GST levy and waiver). Petitioner's arguments: Premiums for retirees are discriminatory and violate the 10th Bi-partite Settlement, as serving employees' parents (similarly aged) are covered at lower rates. The MoF's 2012 letter directed banks to bear premiums from staff welfare funds. Domiciliary benefits were initially included but later made chargeable for retirees only. Respondents' arguments: The petitions are infructuous as the scheme is optional and renewed annually. The 10th Bi-partite Settlement allows banks to decide retiree contributions. The MoF's 2012 letter was advisory, not mandatory. No provision supports a waiver of GST.