Nemaram Gehlot vs Punjab National Bank And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1139 Raj

[2022/RJJD/030429]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9151/2011

Nemaram Gehlot S/o late Samaji Gehlot, aged 58 years, r/o Aadarsh Gali, Badgaon, The Sheoganj Dist. Sirohi (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Punjab National Bank through its Chief Manager, PF & Pension Department, Head Office, Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, New Delhi.

2. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, HRD Department, Circle Office, Angira Darpan, First Floor, 802, Chaupasani Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).

3. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Angira Darpan, First Floor, 802, Chaupasani Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).

                                                                                 ----Respondents


             For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Rajesh Parihar with
                                                Mr. Devam Jain
             For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Jagdish Vyas



                           HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                                 Judgment

Reportable
             30th January, 2023

The present writ petition has been preferred against the

communication dated 11.02.2011 (Annex.9) whereby the option

form preferred by the petitioner to join the pension scheme has

been rejected on the premise that he is not eligible to exercise

another pension option.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner who was

appointed as a regular Class IV employee with the Punjab National

Bank on 31.12.1977, after completion of more than 30 years of

service, on 27.11.2007, applied for resignation from the service

[2022/RJJD/030429] (2 of 18) [CW-9151/2011]

w.e.f. 29.02.2008. Before the said application could be accepted

or responded upon, vide the subsequent application dated

11.12.2007, he made a clarification that his earlier application

dated 27.11.2007 be treated to be an application for voluntary

retirement and not for resignation. The application dated

11.12.2007 was taken note of by the concerned Bank Manager

and on the same date, the said fact was communicated to the

Regional Manager. The application preferred by the petitioner was

accepted by the competent authority and he therefore, stood

retired w.e.f. 29.02.2008.

In the year 2010, a bipartite settlement was signed between

the Indian Banks' Association and different Bank Workmen Unions

regarding various terms and conditions of the Bank employees.

The said settlement also incorporated the Clause for award of

pension to the Bank employees. In pursuance to the Memorandum

of Settlement dated 27.04.2010, circular No.8/2010 dated

16.08.2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'Circular') was issued by

the respondent Bank whereby an option was given to the

employees of the Bank to opt for the pension scheme. A period of

60 days was granted to the eligible employees to exercise the said

option and to become a Member of the pension fund.

On 03.09.2010, the petitioner exercised the said option and

gave in writing his consent to become a Member of the pension

fund. In addition, the petitioner also deposited an amount of

Rs.2,97,482/- qua his share and contribution to the Provident

Fund. The application dated 03.09.2010 was rejected by the

respondent Bank and vide communication dated 11.02.2011, he

was informed that as he had taken voluntary retirement (other

[2022/RJJD/030429] (3 of 18) [CW-9151/2011]

than VRS), he was not eligible for opting for pension in terms of

the circular dated 16.08.2010. The amount as deposited by the

petitioner was also credited back to his account. Aggrieved against

the said communication, the present writ petition has been

preferred.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner was very much entitled to exercise another pension

option in terms of the settlement dated 27.04.2010 and the

subsequent circular dated 16.08.2010. Counsel submitted that the

Circular did not provide for any distinction between the employees

who opted for simplicitor voluntary retirement or those who opted

for voluntary retirement under any special scheme. It is only the

respondent Bank who derived out such distinction contrary to the

Circular. Counsel submitted that the Circular specifically provided

that the employees/officers who were in service of the Bank prior

to 29.09.1995 and retired after that date but prior to the date of

settlement/joint note dated 27.04.2010, would be entitled to join

the existing pension scheme. Admittedly, the petitioner entered

into the services of the Bank prior to 29.09.1995 and retired on

29.02.2008 i.e. prior to the date of settlement i.e. 27.04.2010.

Counsel further submitted that the bipartite settlement provides

for grant of another pension option to all the 'retired' employees

of the Bank. The term 'retired' has been used in the settlement in

a general and broader sense and has not been limited to the

employees who stood retired because of resignation/voluntary

retirement/death. The settlement intended to cover all the retired

employees of the Bank without distinguishing the nature of

retirement and therefore, the distinction as made by the

[2022/RJJD/030429] (4 of 18) [CW-9151/2011]

respondent Bank being totally contrary to the Settlement as well

as the Circular deserves to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that the petitioner could not be governed by the Settlement as

well as the Circular as: Firstly, the petitioner had resigned from

services and not retired voluntarily. The employee who had

resigned from services cannot be equated with an employee who

voluntarily retired. Counsel submitted that the communication

dated 13.02.2008 whereby the application of the petitioner was

accepted specifically mentions that the resignation of the

petitioner had been accepted and therefore, it is clear that the

petitioner had resigned from services. Secondly, at the relevant

point of time, there was no provision for the award staff to avail

voluntary retirement and therefore, even otherwise, no application

of any award staff for voluntary retirement could have been

accepted. Therefore, in absence of any provision for voluntary

retirement, the only course available to an employee to retire from

services prior to the stipulated date was by means of resignation.

Meaning thereby, the petitioner having resigned from services,

was not entitled for pension in terms of the pension regulations in

operation at the relevant time. Therefore, when the petitioner was

not entitled for any pension on the date of his retirement, he could

not be held entitled for pension subsequently by virtue of the

Settlement dated 27.04.2010.

Counsel further submitted that by virtue of the Circular, the

employees who were entitled for pension at the relevant point of

time but did not exercise the said option at that time, were given

a second chance to exercise the option. But, by no means, the

[2022/RJJD/030429] (5 of 18) [CW-9151/2011]

settlement can be given a retrospective effect so as to give an

option to even those employees who were not entitled to pension

on the date of their retirement. In support of his contentions,

learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following

judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:

1. BSES Yamuna Power Limited Vs. Ghanshyam Chand

Sharma and Anr.; (2020) 3 SCC 346.

2. Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of

India and Ors. Vs. Shree Lal Meena; (2019) 4 SCC 479.

3. M.R. Prabhakar and Ors. Vs. Canara Bank and Ors.;

(2012) 9 SCC 671.

4. Union Bank of India Vs. Venkatesh Gopal Mahishi and

Anr.; (2006) 12 SCC 20.

In rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that by all means, the petitioner had applied for

voluntary retirement and his application had been accepted by the

respondent Bank for voluntary retirement only. The same cannot

be termed to be a resignation by any means. Counsel submitted

that had it been a resignation, all the benefits of past service of

the petitioner would have been forfeited which admittedly, has not

been done in his case. Counsel submitted that the petitioner was

very much entitled to pension in terms of the Pension Regulations,

1995 on the date of his retirement and therefore, was also entitled

to exercise the option as provided by the bipartite settlement. In

support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied

upon the following judgments:

1. Shashikala Devi Vs. Central Bank of India and Ors.; AIR

2015 SC 2434.

[2022/RJJD/030429] (6 of 18) [CW-9151/2011]

2. N. Suresh Prabhu and Ors. Vs. Corporation Bank and

Indian Banks Association and Ors.; ILR 2013 Karnataka

400.

3. Punjab National Bank and Ors. Vs. Virender Singh

Siwach; LPA No.735 of 2012 (O&M), decided on

09.10.2015. (Punjab & Haryana High Court)

4. Brij Mohan Chhabra Vs. Union of India and Ors.; S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.1158/2012, decided on 31.05.2016.

(Rajasthan High Court)

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

The first issue which arises in the present writ petition is

whether the applications dated 27.11.2007 and 11.12.2007 were

the letters of resignation simplicitor or they were the letters

seeking voluntary retirement.

In Shashikala Devi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court

opined as under:-

"Whether or not a given communication is a letter of resignation simplictor or can as well be treated to be a request for voluntary retirement will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the provisions of the Rules applicable."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgment, after dealing

with all the earlier law related to 'resignation' and 'voluntary

retirement', opined that the mere use of the word 'resignation' in

the communication/letter cannot be conclusive. The same has to

be concluded from the facts and circumstances of each case at

hand. So far as the present matter is concerned, although the

petitioner applied vide application dated 27.11.2007 for

[2022/RJJD/030429] (7 of 18) [CW-9151/2011]

resignation but soon after that, vide application dated 11.12.2007,

he clarified that his application dated 27.11.2007 be considered to

be an application for voluntary retirement and not for resignation.

The petitioner intended to get voluntarily retired only is clear from

the fact that he gave a three months notice in terms of the

governing Rules. Had he intended to resign, no such prior notice

of three months was required to be given. Secondly, the

application dated 11.12.2007 was taken cognizance of by the

competent authority and the same was forwarded to the higher

authorities on the very same date with the specific

recommendation that the application dated 27.11.2007 as

preferred by the petitioner be treated to be an application for

voluntary retirement only. Thirdly, there is no rejection available

on record of the application dated 11.12.2007 by the Bank.

Moreover, the impugned communication dated 11.02.2011 also

specifies that the petitioner stood voluntary retired although not in

terms of the Special Scheme of 2010. The application dated

03.09.2010 preferred by the petitioner in terms of the circular has

also not been rejected on the ground that he had resigned from

services but on the ground that he did not retire in terms of the

Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

In Shashikala Devi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court

held as under :

"For a waiver of a legally enforceable right earned by an employee, it is necessary that the same is clear and unequivocal, conscious and with full knowledge of the consequences.

.......................

.......................

It is, in our opinion, abundantly clear that the beneficial provisions of a Pension Scheme or Pension Regulations have been interpreted rather liberally so as to promote the object underlying the same rather

[2022/RJJD/030429] (8 of 18) [CW-9151/2011]

than denying benefits due to beneficiaries under such provisions. In cases where an employee has the requisite years of qualifying service for grant of pension, and where he could under the service conditions applicable seek voluntary retirement, the benefit of pension has been allowed by treating the purported resignation to be a request for voluntary retirement. We see no compelling reasons for doing so even in the present case, which in our opinion is in essence a case of the deceased employee seeking voluntary retirement rather than resigning."

In Sheel Kumar Jain v. New India Assurance Company

Limited and Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 197, the facts were somewhat

similar to the case at hand. The Appellant in that case was an

employee of an Insurance Company governed by a Pension

Scheme which provided, as in the case at hand, forfeiture of the

entire service of an employee should he resign from his

employment. The Appellant submitted a letter of resignation which

resulted in denial of his service benefits under the scheme

aforementioned. Hon'ble Apex Court, however, held that since the

employee had completed the qualifying service and was entitled to

seek voluntary retirement under the scheme, he could not be said

to have resigned so as to lose his pension. The Court said:

25. Para 22 of the 1995 Pension Scheme states that the resignation of an employee from the service of the corporation or a company shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently he shall not qualify for pensionary benefits, but does not define the term "resignation". Under Sub-para (1) of Para 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme, an employee, who has completed 20 years of qualifying service, may by giving notice of not less than 90 days in writing to the appointing authority retire from service and Under Sub-para (2) of Para 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme, the notice of voluntary retirement shall require acceptance by the appointing authority. Since "voluntary retirement" unlike "resignation" does not entail forfeiture of past services and instead qualifies for pension, an employee to whom Para 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme applies cannot be said to have "resigned" from service.

[2022/RJJD/030429] (9 of 18) [CW-9151/2011]

26. In the facts of the present case, we find that the Appellant had completed 20 years of qualifying service and had given notice of not less than 90 days in writing to the appointing authority of his intention to leave the service and the appointing authority had accepted notice of the Appellant and relieved him from service. Hence, Para 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme applied to the Appellant even though in his letter dated 16-9-1991 to the General Manager of Respondent 1 Company he had used the word "resign"."

When viewed in backdrop of the above mentioned facts and

the settled law on the point, this Court is of the specific opinion

that the petitioner had voluntarily retired and had not resigned

from services.

Now, when this Court has reached to the conclusion that the

petitioner had voluntarily retired from services, the next issue

which would arise is - whether he was entitled for pension on the

date of his retirement.

Admittedly, the pension regulations governing the

respondent Bank had come into existence in the year 1995 named

as Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995

(hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations'). Rule 2 of the said

Regulations provides for the definitions of different terms used in

the Regulations.

Rule 2(k) defines 'date of retirement' as under:-

"Date of retirement" means the last date of the month in which an employee attains the age of superannuation or the date on which he is retired by the Bank or the date on which the employee voluntarily retires or the date on which the officer is deemed to have retired.

Rule 2(l) defines the term 'deemed to have retired' as

under:-

[2022/RJJD/030429] (10 of 18) [CW-9151/2011]

"Deemed to have retired" means cessation from service of the Bank on appointment by Central Govt. as a whole-time Director or Managing Director or Chairman in the Bank or in any other Bank specified in column 2 of the FIRST SCHEDULE of the Act or Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980(40 of 1980) or in any public financial institution or State Bank of India established under State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955).

Rule 2(n) defines 'employee' as under:-

"Employee" means any person employed in the service of the Bank, whether as a workman on full time work on permanent basis or on part- time work on permanent basis on scale wages or as an officer and who opts and is governed by these regulations, but does not include a person employed either on contract basis or daily wage basis or on consolidated wages.

Rule 2(u) defines 'pensioner' as under:-

"Pensioner" means an employee eligible for pension under these Regulations.

Rule 2(x) defines the word 'retired' as under:-

"Retired" includes deemed to have retired under clause (l).

Rule 2(y) defines 'retirement' as under:-

"Retirement" means cessation from Bank's service,

(a) on attaining the age of superannuation specified in Service Regulations or Settlements

(b) on voluntary retirement in accordance with provisions contained in Regulation 29 of these regulations;

(c) on premature retirement by the Bank before attaining the age of superannuation specified in Service Regulations or Settlements.

From a bare perusal of the above provisions/definitions, it

can be concluded that any person, permanently employed with the

[2022/RJJD/030429] (11 of 18) [CW-9151/2011]

Bank whether on full time or part time basis, would be governed

by these Regulations. Admittedly, the petitioner was a full time

employee working on permanent basis with the Bank. The term

'date of retirement' includes the date on which the employee

voluntarily retires and even the date on which an employee is

retired by the Bank and further even the date on which the officer

is deemed to have retired. Meaning thereby, the definition includes

the employees who had been retired by the Bank and also the

employees who voluntarily retired without any

distinction/specification of voluntary retirement under any Special

Scheme. The term 'retired' as defined, specifically provides that it

would include even the employees who deemed to have retired

under Clause (l) i.e., the employees who undertook any

employment with some other government undertaking or public

financial institution. The word 'retirement' includes voluntary

retirement in accordance with the provisions contained in

Regulation 29.

Regulation 29 provides as under:-

"29. Pension on Voluntary Retirement.

(1) On or after the 1st day of November, 1993, at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority retire from service;

Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who is on deputation or on study leave abroad unless after having been transferred or having returned to India he has resumed charge of the post in India and has served for a period of not less than one year;

Provided further that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking or

[2022/RJJD/030429] (12 of 18) [CW-9151/2011]

company or institution or body, whether incorporated or not to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement:

Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who is deemed to have retired in accordance with clause (l) of Regulation 2. (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-regulation (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority;

Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.

(3) (a) An employee referred to in sub-regulation (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons thereof;

(b) On receipt of a request under clause (a), the appointing authority may, subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (2), consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the notice of three months.

(4) An employee, who has elected to retire under this regulation and has given necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority; Provided that the request for such withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement.

(5) The qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this regulation shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty- three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation (6) The pension of an employee retiring under this regulation shall be based on the average emoluments as defined under clause (d) of Regulation 2 of these Regulations and the increase, not exceeding five years

[2022/RJJD/030429] (13 of 18) [CW-9151/2011]

in his qualifying service, shall not entitle him to any notional fixation of pay for the purpose of calculating his pension."

A bare reading of the above Regulation makes it clear that

any employee who had completed 20 years of qualifying service

would be entitled to apply for voluntary retirement by giving a

notice of not less than three months in writing. The only

exceptions provided to the said Regulation are that it would not

apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being

absorbed permanently in some other undertaking and to those

employees who are deemed to have retired in accordance with

Clause (l) of Regulation 2. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fall

in any of the exceptions as pointed out above and therefore,

would definitely be governed by Regulation 29 and was definitely

entitled for pension on voluntary retirement. The petitioner

admittedly retired after the year 1993 and had even completed his

qualifying services of more than 20 years on the date of applying

for voluntary retirement. By all means, he was entitled to pension

on the date of his retirement. Therefore, the ground taken by

learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner being an

award staff was not entitled to opt firstly, for voluntary

retirement and secondly, for pension, cannot be held to be

tenable.

In Brij Mohan Chhabra's case (supra), while dealing with

an almost identical situation, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

held as under :

"The facts in the present case are unlike the situation in Prabhakar's case, wherein at the time when the appellant (therein) had submitted his resignation, there was no provision for retirement and there was only a provision for resignation. In the instant case, when the respondent had

[2022/RJJD/030429] (14 of 18) [CW-9151/2011]

submitted his resignation in 2008, the 1995 Pension Regulations were in existence, under which there was a provision for seeking voluntary retirement on completion of 20 years of service by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority.

...................

...................

...................

If it were to be a resignation, no notice was required on either side, and the resignation could have been tendered and accepted straightaway. The pension rules itself permit voluntary retirement and entitlement to pension which has been done in the present case.

Resultantly the above noted writ petition is allowed and the impugned communication/letter of rejection dated 28.4.2011 is hereby set aside. Furthermore it is held that the petitioner has put in more than 20 years of qualifying services as per Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations and voluntarily retired from service thus in entitled to the benefits of the Pension Scheme."

In view of the above precedents, it is concluded that the

petitioner is governed by the Regulations of 1995 and therefore,

was entitled to apply for voluntary retirement as well as for

pension on the date of his retirement.

The next issue which would now arise would be whether the

petitioner was entitled to exercise his option to be a Member of

the pension fund in terms of the settlement and Circular of the

year 2010. Clause 3.2 of the Circular dated 16.08.2010 provided

as under:-

"3. In terms of Settlement/Joint Note dated th 27 April 2010, another option for joining the existing Pension Scheme shall be extended to:-

1. ..................

2. EMPLOYEES/OFFICERS WHO WERE IN THE SERVICE OF THE BANK PRIOR TO 29TH SEPTEMBER 1995 AND RETIRED AFTER THAT DATE BUT PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SETTLEMENT/JOINT NOTE DATED 27.04.2010 PROVIDED THAT THEY:

[2022/RJJD/030429] (15 of 18) [CW-9151/2011]

1. Exercise an option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer, to become a member of the Pension fund and

2. Refund within 30 days after expiry of the said period of 60 days, the entire amount of the banks contribution to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon received by him on retirement together with his share in contribution towards meeting 30% of the funding gap. On an individual basis, the payment over and above the bank's contribution to Provident Fund and interest thereon has been worked out at 56% of the said amount of Bank's contribution to Provident Fund and interest thereon received by the officer/employee on retirement."

A perusal of the above clause makes it clear that the term

used in the said clause is 'retired'. Meaning thereby, the

settlement or the Circular does not make any distinction on the

basis of the mode of retirement of an employee.

The Circular includes all the employees retired within the

specified period. As observed in the preceding paras, the definition

of the term 'retired' includes the employees who have voluntarily

retired therefore, the petitioner was very well covered by the said

definition.

So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for

the respondents are concerned, the same would not apply to the

case in hand for the following reasons :

(1) Ghanshyam Chand Sharma's case (supra) was the one

wherein the petitioner had firstly, not completed the qualifying

service for the purposes of pensionary benefits; secondly, the

application for voluntary retirement of the petitioner therein was

rejected by the Department and therefore, he subsequently

applied for resignation which was accepted and thirdly, the writ

[2022/RJJD/030429] (16 of 18) [CW-9151/2011]

petition was preferred 13 years after denial of the voluntary

retirement and eventual resignation.

(2) Shree Lal Meena's case (supra) was the one wherein on the

date of retirement of the employee therein i.e. 01.10.1993, the

Scheme of 1976 was applicable which had no concept of voluntary

retirement. After three years, the Scheme was amended by

inserting a clause introducing the concept of voluntary retirement

with retrospective effect from 01.11.1993. The employee therein

then filed a representation on 04.04.2013 seeking pension on the

basis of 1995 Scheme. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on

the ground that the Scheme of 1995 was not even in existence on

the date of his retirement and therefore, he would not be entitled

for any pension.

(3) Similar was the case of M.R. Prabhakar (supra) wherein, on

the date of resignation/voluntary retirement, the employees were

not covered under the Pension Scheme of Banks.

(4) Venkatesh Gopal Mahishi's case (supra) was the one

wherein in terms of Rules, benefit of exercising option for pension

was not extended to the employees who had retired on medical

grounds with simultaneous appointment of the dependents on

compassionate grounds. That was the case wherein the employee

sought retirement on medical grounds, the said request was

accepted and later on his son was also granted compassionate

appointment. In those circumstances, the Court held that he was

not entitled for pensionary benefits.

In view of the specific provisions of the Circular and in view

of the ratio as laid down in the precedents as cited above, this

Court is of the specific opinion that the petitioner was entitled to

[2022/RJJD/030429] (17 of 18) [CW-9151/2011]

be governed by the Settlement as well as the Circular of the year

2010. The ground taken by learned counsel for the respondents on

the basis of Clause 2(4) of the Circular cannot be held to be

tenable as the same is to be read in a broader perspective and not

in a limited perspective. Vide the said Clause, the employees who

had opted for voluntary retirement after rendering a minimum

period of 15 years of service were also held entitled to exercise

their option in terms of the Circular. Meaning thereby, the

condition of 20 years of qualifying service was relaxed by the said

Clause and the employees who had opted for voluntary retirement

even prior to their completion of the period of qualifying service,

were also held entitled to be governed by the said Circular. The

said Clause is clearly a piece of beneficial legislation with an intent

to relax the conditions for the retired employees and cannot be

read to the detriment of those employees so as to interpret the

same to be applicable to only those employees who applied for

voluntary retirement under any Special Scheme.

The intent of the Circular as well as the Settlement is clear

even from Clause 2(5) which provides that the pension/family

pension will be payable to those, who opt to join pension scheme

and comply with terms and conditions set out in the

settlement/joint note dated 27.04.2010. Meaning thereby, the said

Circular was intended to apply even to those who opted to join the

pension scheme now in terms of the conditions laid therein. The

only exception to the scheme were the employees who joined the

services after 01.04.2010. Therefore, by any stretch of

imagination, it cannot be concluded that Clause 2(4) of the

[2022/RJJD/030429] (18 of 18) [CW-9151/2011]

Circular intended to include only those employees who retired

voluntarily under any Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

In view of the above observations, all the issues emerging in

the present petition having been decided in favour of the

petitioner, the present writ petition is allowed. The

communication dated 11.02.2011 (Annex.9) is hereby quashed

and set aside. The respondent Bank is directed to act upon the

application dated 03.09.2010 of the petitioner and permit him to

exercise his option to join the existing pension scheme with effect

from the date of application subject to the other conditions being

fulfilled by him. The required action be taken by the Bank within a

period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the present

order.

(REKHA BORANA),J Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)