MAHAVEER KHARIWAL Vs. INDIAN BANK AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal against the decision of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 16972/2005 dated 11th October, 2006, is whether the respondent bank was right in declining to accede to the request made by the appellant for voluntary retirement under Regulation 29 of the Indian Bank (Employees') Pension Regulation 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "Pension Regulation" 1995. for short).

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal lie in a short compass and may be stated as thus:

(3.) IN so far as prayer for voluntary retirement is concerned, the learned single Judge held that the appellant had not given notice of three months and instead he had requested that three months wages could be deducted from his retiral benefits. No such alternative is provided in the Pension Regulations, 1995 and thus the appellant had not fulfilled the requirements of the Regulation 29.