NARENDRA KUMAR PARWANDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was given voluntary retirement by the respondent - bank w.e.f 25.9.1995. The period from 10.7.1993 to 25.9.1995 -the date of grant of voluntary retirement was treated by the respondent -bank as a period of extraordinary leave granted to the petitioner. This period was treated as extraordinary leave because petitioner did not join the services of the bank from 10.4.1993 till voluntary retirement was given on 25.9.1995. Petitioner by this writ petition prays that any pay increases which became effective from 10.4.1993 to 25.9.1995 should be given to him when he was given voluntary retirement on 25.9.1995, and whatever are the pay increases from 10.4.1993 to 25.9.1995 should also have consequential effect for increasing the voluntary retirement benefits including the monthly pension amount payable to the petitioner. Accordingly, by this writ petition the petitioner questions the denial of pay increases for the period from 10.4.1993 to 25.9.1995.

(2.) THE facts are that the petitioner initially applied for resignation from services on medical grounds in terms of the letter dated 10.4.1993. The respondent -bank did not act on this request, and in the meanwhile a pension scheme came into effect. Petitioner on 10.6.1994 thus requested the respondent -bank that instead of allowing the petitioner to resign, the bank should accept his application as exercise of option of voluntary retirement on medical grounds and grant him invalid pension. The bank however by a letter dated 25.9.1995 for the first time informed the petitioner that since he did not join the services of the bank w.e.f 10.7.1993 (three months from 10.4.1993) hence the petitioner is deemed to have resigned w.e.f 10.7.1993. Petitioner challenged the action of the respondent -bank in claiming that he had resigned w.e.f 10.7.1993 by filing W.P.(C) No.766/1996 and in which case a judgment was delivered in favour of the petitioner by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 25.7.2006. It was held in this judgment dated 25.7.2006 that petitioner's resignation had not taken effect because he had withdrawn the same before the same was accepted by the respondent -bank. Respondent -bank therefore in terms of the judgment dated 25.7.2006 was asked to consider the application of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement and granting all consequential benefits in accordance with the rules on acceptance of the application seeking voluntary retirement.

(3.) UNFORTUNATELY in none of the pleadings of any of the parties i.e in the writ petition or the counter affidavit or the rejoinder affidavit any rules have been stated as to how is the period of qualifying service to be calculated, and, whether the period of extraordinary leave is or is not to be counted for the purpose of determining qualifying service period for arriving at the voluntary retirement benefits and pension payments. Counsel for the parties however agree before me today that the parties are governed by the Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. We will therefore have to consider of these 1995 Regulations in order to determine whether pay increases in a period of extraordinary leave should or should not be considered for determining the pay (average emoluments) as on the date of voluntary retirement of an employee. The relevant Regulations of the 1995 Regulations, in this regard, are Regulation 2(s) which defines pay, Regulation 2(y) which defines retirement, Regulation 14 which defines qualifying service, Regulation 15 which deals with commencement date of qualifying service, Regulation 17 which provides that extraordinary leave on loss of pay shall not be counted as qualifying service, Regulation 30 which defines invalid pension and finally Regulation 38 which provides for the period of 10 months pay which has to be taken for calculation of average emoluments. These Regulations read as under: -