UCO BANK THROUGH CHAIRMAN Vs. S K SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ application of the private Respondent, who was the Petitioner before the writ Court was allowed. The learned Single Judge treated the letter of resignation for voluntary retirement from service w.e.f 16.05.2011 to be accepted and the Appellant-Bank was further directed to settle the consequential benefits. This order dated 28.09.2018 is under challenge in the present appeal.

(2.) Some facts behind the present dispute is that the private Respondent entered into the service of the Appellant-Bank as a Clerk-cum-Godown Keeper on 10.09.1983. He earned his promotion over a period of time and was holding the post of a Manager when he decided to tender his resignation for voluntary retirement on 04.10.2010. The notice was valid for a period of three months. Since there was no action on the part of the Appellant-Bank to take cognizance of the said resignation letter, the private Respondent continued to work for sometime i.e. till 16.05.2011. After the said day, he did not work for the Bank but when his dues were not settled, he decided to approach the High Court by filing Writ Petition (S) No. 1620 of 2012.

(3.) The Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 contemplates voluntary retirement from service under clause 29(2). The said clause reads as under: