VIJAYA BANK Vs. CHANDRAKANT DEVJIBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI , j 1. We have heard Mr. Uday Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Shah, learned advocate for the respondent.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that: The petitioner had joined the services of the respondent - Bank in August, 1974. The last posting of the petitioner was as a Senior Manager of the Relief Road Branch at Ahmedabad. The petitioner expressed his desire to discontinue his service in the respondent Bank by tendering a resignation dated 10th September 1992, which was accepted by the respondent -bank, with effect from 30th March 1993. When the petitioner had tendered his resignation for getting premature retirement from the respondent -bank, there was no Voluntary Retirement Scheme or any other Pension Scheme in existence. On his premature voluntary retirement from the respondent - bank with effect from 1st April 1993, the petitioner received his dues towards regular Provident Fund and Gratuity. Except the Provident fund dues and the Gratuity dues, the petitioner had not received any other dues or benefits on being permitted to retire voluntarily. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time when he took voluntary premature retirement, the negotiations were going on between Indian Banks Association, the Workmen Union and Officers' Association and the management of various Banks, including the respondent - bank. The negotiations between the Indian Banks Association and the Workmen Unions and Officers' Association, culminated into a settlement dated 29th September 1993, wherein for the first time, a Pension Scheme was introduced. The respondent -Bank had published its Circular No. 122 of 1994, dated 2nd June 1994, in the matter of introduction of the Pension Scheme as per settlement dated 29th October 1993. The petitioner has placed reliance on paragraph 2, Clause (iii) of the Circular dated 2nd June 1994, bearing No. 122 of 1994, which reads as under : -

(3.) WE concur with this submission and therefore on this count also the learned Single Judge has committed error in allowing the petition.