CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. S CHANDRASHEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant - Central Bank of India in short 'the Bank', is aggrieved of the order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, in WP(C) 3833/2006 filed by the respondent, the Bank, inter alia, was directed to grant pension to the respondent under its Pension Regulations, 1995.

(2.) Concisely, the facts relevant to the appeal are that the respondent had joined the Bank as a Clerk on 03.08.1972 and earned promotions over a span of 22 years of his service to the Bank. It is a matter of record that in the year 1990, the Reserve Bank of India arrived at a settlement with its employees to extend them the pensionary benefits. On the similar demands made by the employees of the Public Sector Banks, the Indian Banks Association, in short, 'IBA', which represents the Public Sector Banks, arrived at a settlement with the Employees' Association and Trade Unions and a Memorandum of Settlement dated 29.10.1993 in short 'MoS', came to be arrived at amongst them. In terms of this MoS, the employees of such IBA members, who were in service as on 01.11.1993, became eligible for pension. It also emerges from the record that IBA vide its communication dated 17.03.1994 asked the Public Sector Banks, which included the Bank, to, inter alia, inform its employees to exercise their option for pension by 30.09.1994. The Bank, so, informed its employees to exercise their option. Undisputedly, the respondent exercised his option for pension on 09.09.1994. Having exercised such option, the respondent, vide his communication dated 28.02.1995, requested the Bank for being relieved immediately and requested that the resignation so tendered, be accepted. The Bank conveyed its acceptance of such resignation tendered by the respondent vide its communication dated 29.03.1995. Vide its communication dated 04.06.1996, though, the Bank acknowledged the receipt of the option for pension, the sanction of pension to the respondent was not ever given effect to. On 29.09.1999, Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 in short 'the Bank's Pension Regulations' came to be notified, after consultation with RBI. On this, the respondent made repeated representations and in response to his representation/letter dated 23.06.1998, vide its letter dated 22.09.1998, the Bank, informed the respondent that as per the existing provisions of the Pension Regulations i.e. Regulation 22, the respondent was not eligible for pension inasmuch as he had resigned from service. The respondent sought to reason his case making further representations, the last of which, as emerges from the record, was made on 02.11.2005. Getting no positive results, the respondent approached this Court by way of a writ petition in the year 2006, in which the impugned order has come to be passed. The Bank assails the impugned order, pertinently, on two counts. One, Regulation 22 of the Bank's Pension Regulations disqualifies its employees from pensionary benefits in the case of resignation and that, the case of the respondent was not of voluntary retirement and that, the resignation and voluntary retirement cannot be treated at par. Secondly, the respondent had approached the court after 11 years of his resignation from the service and therefore, the writ petition was hit by the principles of delays and laches. In support of such pleas, reliance is placed upon UCO Bank & Ors. vs. Sanwar Mal,2004 4 SC 412 and Reserve Bank of India vs. Cecil Dennis Solomon & Anr., 2004 9 SCC 461.

(3.) In the submissions of learned counsel for the Bank, the impugned order was not sustainable in law inasmuch as the respondent has resigned prior to coming into force of the Bank's Pension Regulations and that, Regulation 22, specifically, disentitles the pensionary benefits to an employee, who chooses to resign from service.