KAILASH NATH SINGHAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has been challenging Regulation 33(1) of the Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Regulations") as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It has been the say of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Punjab National Bank in 1960 and while he was working as Assistant Manager in Regional Collection Centre of the Bank in November, 1998 he was charge- sheeted and as a result whereof the petitioner was immediately suspended; that the Disciplinary, Authority, considering the representation, reinstated the petitioner in May 1990 on the same posts of Assistant Manager without affecting salary and emoluments, on the finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were very minor: that on 21.2.1991 surprisingly the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the service without any further charges: that the petitioner was denied any proportionate pension on the grounds explained by the respondent-bank authorities as per Regulation.33(1) of the said Regulations, framed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970; that Regulation 33(1) arbitrarily provides a cut-offdate 1.11.1993 without any rationale; that the petitioner retired from service keeping in view Regulation 19(1) of Service Regulations, 1979; that since the petitioner was retired from service, keeping in view above provision, he is covered by section 3(1)(a) of the Regulations, 1995 and, therefore, entitled for the pension: that the management of the respondent-bank framed Rule 33(1) under said Regulations, 1995 denying pension benefits to those employees who were compulsorily retired from service as a penalty on or before 1.11.1993 which is in contradiction with the settlement and Rule 53 of the Service Regulations, 1979.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution nor it is a punishment and the same does not entail loss of retiral benefits and that the petitioner would be entitled to retiral benefits as he was compulsorily retired: that the petitioner is not bound by the settlement by which the cut-offdate of 1.11.1993 has been fixed, disentitling the petitioner to the pension; that the petitioner served for more than 30 years with the respondent-bank and that the cut-offdate 1.11.1993 is arbitrary, and unjust; that Regulation 33(1)(c), which provides for cut-off date as 1.11.1993 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted by Mr. Ravi Sikri, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 3 that those employees, who were compulsorily retired by way of penalty before 1.11.1993 would not be entitled to the pension and those employees who were compulsorily retired after 1.11.1993 would get the pension as per Regulation 33(1); that providing cut-offdate of 1.11.1993 is legal and valid; that the petitioner would not be entitled to pension as he was compulsorily retired by way of major penalty on 18.2.91 th the petitioner has not challenged the compulsory retirement by way of punishment; that the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief on account of delay and latches also and that the pension scheme came into effect from 1.11.1993; that the factum of petitioner having been compulsorily retired by way of penalty has been suppressed in the petition and that petitioner was never reinstated in service.