NARENDRA KANTILAL DAVE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner after having served for 26-1/2 years tendered the resignation on the 6th of July, 1992 and sought waiver of notice period. On the 5th of August, 1992 the resignation was accepted and w.e.f. that date there was a cessation of the jurial relationship `master and servant' between the Bank and the petitioner. In 1995, the respondent Bank framed Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. Those regulations were given effect to from the 22nd of September, 1995. Regulation 14 of these regulations provides:-

(2.) Relying upon this, the petitioner had applied for payment of pension. According to him, his services came to an end on the 6th of July, 1992, i.e., after the first of January, 1986 and, therefore, he is entitled to pension. What stands in the way of the petitioner is Regulation 22(1). Regulation 22(1) provides:-

(3.) Mr.Anil Mittal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the word `resignation' found in this Regulation 22(1) has to be considered in the light of the other regulations relating to voluntary retirement, invalid pension and compensatory allowance, and he referred to Regulations 22, 29 and 31. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Anil Mittal, also referred to Regulation 14 which speaks of qualifying service of a minimum of ten years. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the employment of the word `resignation' in Regulation 22 as being discriminatory and unreasonable on the anvil of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel submitted that the Bank is guilty of presenting discrimination between persons who voluntarily retire from service and who tender resignation, whereas in both the cases the employees go out of service and what is to be considered is the number of years of service rendered by the concerned employee. If in a given case an employee had rendered more than the qualifying service, whether there is voluntary retirement or resignation, that employee would be entitled to pension. Segregating from the ambit of the pension rules those employees who had tendered resignation after serving for a considerable length of time, serving more than qualifying service period, would be in violation, their rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Anil Mittal, the purpose of providing for pension is to reward for the past service rendered by the employee providing something in his old-age and that cannot be denied to an employee like the petitioner who had rendered 26-1/2 years of service.