R N TIKKU Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has assailed by way of this writ petition, Regulation No. 15 of - Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation 1995 (hereinafter called the Regulations, 1995), pursuance to which he has been deprived of the benefit of counting the period of deputation spent in the Bank.

(2.) In order to appreciate the challenge the facts relevant and undisputed are that the petitioner was working as Research Officer in the Banking Division of the Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. On 26th June, 1979 he was transferred to the respondent Bank on terms of deputation for a period of two years. However, before the expiry of his deputation period an advertisement was issued by the Banking Service Recruitment Board, Delhi (in short the BSRB) for the post of Manager. The advertisement appeared in the newspaper "Times of India" dated 5th September, 1980. The date for interview for the said post was fixed in the month of April, 1981. In response to the said advertisement petitioner applied. He was selected by the BSRB, Delhi and accordingly offered appointment on permanent basis in the bank to the post of Manager on 25th June, 1981 subject to his severing lien with the Government of India and seeking clearance and approval of the Government for joining that post. It was necessary before he could be permanently absorbed in the service of the Bank. Petitioner accepted these conditions. Accordingly, the Bank wrote to the Government of India asking for the clearance for permanent absorption of the petitioner in the bank on the basis of his selection by the BSRB, Delhi. Petitioner was appointed on substantive basis as Manager (Corporate Planning) with the Bank as a fresh recruit on probation for a period of one year, on 25th June, 1981. He successfully completed his probationary period and, therefore, got confirmed in the said post on 25th June, 1982. Petitioner retired from the service of the Bank on 31st March, 1990 after attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement the bank circulated Pensionary Benefit Scheme vide circular dated June, 1994, pursuance to which petitioner submitted his option for pensionary benefits on 26th July, 1994. In 1995 the respondent Bank formulated the Regulations, 1995. On the basis of the Regulations, 1995 case of the petitioner was processed. He completed all the formalities stipulated therein, but his case for pensionary benefit was rejected by the bank vide letter dated 22nd June, 1996, inter alia, on the ground that he did not fulfil qualifying minimum length of service of 10 years in the Bank as per the terms of Regulation No. 15.

(3.) Petitioner assailed this order primarily on the ground that Regulation 15 is arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. According to him appointment on "permanent basis", the expression used in the Regulation No. 15, would mean and include the period spent by the petitioner on deputation with the bank. Any other interpretation to this expression would make the Regulation redundant.