THAKORDAS LALLUBHAI VEDIYA Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was in the service of the respondent bank for about 30 years, claims pension. The bank has denied it. Therefore this petition.

(2.) Heard learned advocates.

(3.) Mr. Langa, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had joined the service of the respondent Bank on 15.11.1977 and he had voluntarily retired on 09.06.2007. It is submitted that the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was duly considered by the Competent Authority and the same was accepted and the petitioner was relieved by proper office order and was paid his dues accordingly. It is submitted that after the retirement of the petitioner, the respondent Bank expanded the coverage of its pension scheme and the petitioner was entitled to opt for pension as per the said scheme. Learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court through the circulars of the Authorities, including of the respondent Bank which are on record, to contend that the claim of the petitioner is as per the policy of the Bank, which is based on the policy of the Indian Banks' Association, as sanctioned by the Government of India. It is submitted that the petitioner had completed the required procedure vide his letter dated 09.01.2013 (page-49) which was responded by the Bank on 14.02.2013 (page-59) that the request of the petitioner was rejected. It is submitted that denial by the respondent Bank is illegal and therefore the same needs to be interfered with. In support of his submission, Mr. Langa, learned advocate has relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court of India.