SUBHASH CHANDER KHANNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ proceedings raise common questions for determination. Hence, they are dealt with by this common judgment.

(2.) The writ petitioners in these proceedings, were employed by various public sector banks. The writ petitioners in WP 426/2002, 826/2002; 13305- 08/2003 and 24154-24521/05 were employees of the Punjab and Sind Bank. The petitioners in WP 5398-5407/2004 were employees and officials who had worked with the Syndicate Bank. All the petitioners are seeking identical reliefs, of direction for addition of five years" qualifying service to the number of years of service put in by them, in their respective banks, for the purposes of calculation of pension. Although in some of the petitions, claims were made to quash a notification which introduced amendment to regulations in 2002, those were not pressed during the course of hearing.

(3.) It is an undisputed fact that the respondent banks, in tune with the policies uniformly evolved and enforced in all the public sector banks in the country, formulated the "special Voluntary Retirement Scheme" in 2000 (hereafter "the scheme"). The objects of the scheme, identical in nature, even to the extent that the material provisions were in pari materia, were to have a balanced age profile providing for mobility, training, development of skills and succession plans for higher level positions; to provide an exit for employees who have an honest feeling that they should now retire and take rest or that there are better opportunities elsewhere and to have over all reduction in the existing strength of the employees and to increase productivity and profitability.