Service matter – VRS scheme 2000 – Pension Who completed 20 years of service are entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29 by the date of VRS – Regulations 28 , 29 and Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 – High court relying on earlier DB bench judgement of Punjab National Bank dismissed the writ petition as the employees who took voluntary service not completed the requisite period for granting pension – basing on that judgment Bank filed this appeal – Apex court held that Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 provides that if broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year. Therefore, all the respondents-writ petitioners having completed more than 19 years and 6 months of service in the Bank, they are to be treated to have completed 20 years of service. The aforesaid question was neither raised nor decided in the case of ‘Bank of Baroda’ or ‘Bank of India’. In view of the aforesaid fact, the appellant-Bank cannot derive the benefit of the decision of this Court in Bank of Baroda as the employees who were parties before the Court in the said case had not completed 20 years of service. As per the decision of this Court in Bank of India, the respondents-writ petitioners having completed 20 years of service are entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29.In view of the finding recorded above, the appeals do not have merit in reference with the impugned judgment,they are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. =
A number of employees who were allowed to retire from the Bank
pursuant to scheme called State Bank of Patiala Voluntary Retirement
Scheme, 2000(herein after referred to as the “Scheme”) introduced by
Circular dated 20th January, 2001, and had completed more than 19 and ½
years of service, in whose favour pension was not released by the Bank in
accordance with the State Bank of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations,
1995 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations, 1995”). They moved
before the High Court for direction to the Bank and its authorities to
release pension in their favour in accordance with the Scheme. =
The High Court by the impugned judgment referring to earlier Division
Bench decision of the High Court in Dharam Pal Singh v. Punjab National
Bank, 2008 (1) PLR 745 held that the pension was payable under Regulation
28 and that Regulation 29 will not apply.
The Division Bench of the High Court further held as follows:
“12. A perusal of the Regulation 28 shows that on attaining the
age of superannuation specified in Regulations or settlements
pension is payable. The age of superannuation has been laid down
in Service Regulations which is said to be 60 years now and
earlier it was 58 years. But under the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme, which according to the writ petitioners will be at par
with Settlement, the requirement is 15 years of service or 40
years of age, which admittedly the writ petitioners had. Under
Regulation 32 of the pension is payable on premature retirement
on account of orders of the Bank if the employee was otherwise
entitled to pension/superannuation on that day. Read with
Regulations 14 and 28, the said age is 10 years and if read with
the Scheme, it is 15 years of age or 40 years of service and in
either case the employees were covered by the pension scheme.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Regulation 29 relating to
voluntary retirement was not applicable. Thus, contention on
behalf of the Bank that Regulation 29 applied and therefore,
pension payable only after 20 years service cannot be accepted.”=
Apex court held that
The respondents completed more than 10 years of service in the Bank
on the date of retirement; therefore, they fulfill the requirement of
qualifying service as per Regulation 14.
23. It has not been disputed by appellant-Bank that the respondents in
all the appeals have completed much more than 19 years 6 months of service
in the Bank. For example, respondent No.1-Prakash Chand in C.A. No.173 of
2010 had joined the Bank on 4th May, 1981 and relieved on 31st March, 2001.
Thus, he had completed 19 years, 10 months and 28 days of qualifying
service on the date of relieving from service.
24. Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 provides that if
broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year.
Therefore, all the respondents-writ petitioners having completed more than
19 years and 6 months of service in the Bank, they are to be treated to
have completed 20 years of service. The aforesaid question was neither
raised nor decided in the case of ‘Bank of Baroda’ or ‘Bank of India’.
25. In view of the aforesaid fact, the appellant-Bank cannot derive the
benefit of the decision of this Court in Bank of Baroda as the employees
who were parties before the Court in the said case had not completed 20
years of service. As per the decision of this Court in Bank of India, the
respondents-writ petitioners having completed 20 years of service are
entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29.
26. In view of the finding recorded above, the appeals do not have merit
in reference with the impugned judgment,they are, accordingly, dismissed.
No costs.
advocatemmmohan 
Discussion
Comments are closed.