Navin Kishore Prasad Sinha vs Punjab National Bank & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 6535 Cal

26.09.2023 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA DL-9 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION (PP) APPELLATE SIDE WPA 19805 of 2023

Navin Kishore Prasad Sinha Vs.

Punjab National Bank & Ors.

Mr. K. B. S. Mahapatra, Mr. Panchanan Let ....for the petitioner.

Mr. R. N. Majumder, Mr. S. M. Obaidullah ....for PNB.

The petitioner's case is that he is eligible to opt

for pension under the pension scheme of erstwhile

United Bank of India (UBI) now merged with Punjab

National Bank (PNB). Such scheme was circulated by

a letter dated August 20, 2010. The petitioner made

a prayer for transfer to Mumbai on August 8, 2007.

Such prayer was turned down. Next, he made a

prayer for voluntary retirement from service on

September 19, 2007. Such prayer was also turned

down by the bank. The petitioner underwent an

operation. Since his prayer for voluntary retirement

was turned down by a letter dated September 22,

2007, the petitioner submitted his resignation on

September 24, 2007.

Mr. Mahapatra, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner relies on a judgment dated

June 17, 2020 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench

of this Court in FMA 4412 of 2016 (United Bank of

India vs. Sri Swapan Kumar Mullick & Ors.) to

submit that even after resignation an employee may

be considered to have voluntarily retired from service

of the bank and may be eligible to opt for pension.

Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the bank-in-issue submits that the

petitioner cannot rely on the decision of the Hon'ble

Division Bench since the facts of the present case do

not tally with the facts in FMA 4412 of 2016. He

submits that the circular applicable to the workmen

of the bank is not applicable to the officers of the

bank. Furthermore, the petitioner has also not

rendered qualifying period of service to be eligible for

pensionary benefits. Since the petitioner did not

complete 30 years of qualifying service or did not

cross the age of 55 years, he could not apply for

voluntary retirement under UBI (Employees') Pension

Regulations, 1995 since he was not a pension optee.

The request for voluntary retirement was, therefore,

turned down by the Deputy General Manager

(Personnel) on September 22, 2007.

Considering the submissions of the parties and

the materials placed on record, this Court is of the

view that justice will be sub-served by directing the

Divisional Head, PNB or any other authority delegated

by him to file a Report-on-Affidavit explaining why the

petitioner's resignation cannot be treated as voluntary

retirement, for him to opt for pension under the 2010

Scheme.

Let such Report-on-Affidavit be filed by October

19, 2023.

Exception, if any, by November 28, 2023.

Let the matter come up for further consideration

under the same heading "For Orders" on December

6, 2023.

All parties shall act on the server copies of this

order duly downloaded from the official website of

this Hon'ble Court.

(Lapita Banerji, J.)