V.SUBRAMANIAM Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER an employee of a Bank/Insurance Company, who tendered his 'resignation' to the services of the organisation, is entitled to pension under the respective Pension Regulations, as if he had 'voluntarily retired' from service is the question involved in both these matters.

(2.) SINCE the legal question involved in both the matters is same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) SIMILAR is the factual situation in W.P.No.2905 of 1996. In this writ petition, the petitioner joined as Junior Officer (General Insurance) in the Life Insurance Corporation of India on 13.6.1964 and thereafter his services were statutorily transferred to United India Insurance Company Limited. According to the petitioner, within a short span of about ten years (from 1976 to 1987) he was transferred seven times and though some of the transfers were coupled with promotions, it affected his family and hence, while working as Assistant General Manager, Calcutta, he resigned from the services of the third respondent w.e.f. 1.4.1987. Thereafter, on 28.6.1995, the Government of India, by a notification in the official gazette published the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995, w.e.f. 1.11.1993. However, as per Regulation 3(1)(a) of this Scheme, the Scheme shall apply to employees, who were in the service of the Corporation on or after the first day of January, 1986 but had retired before the first day of November, 1993 and exercise an option in writing to be exercised within the stipulated time and refunds the Corporation's contribution to Provident Fund, including interest accrued thereon. Pursuant to publication of the said Scheme, the petitioner has submitted a letter to the respondent/Management to grant him the pension, as per the above said Scheme, but there was no reply to him. According to the petitioner, when he made enquiries, he learnt from the officers of the third respondent that he will not be paid pension on account of Clause 22 of the Pension Scheme, which entails forfeiture of service on resignation/dismissal/removal/termination or compulsory retirement of an employee from service. Therefore, he has come forward to file this writ petition, praying to declare the said Clause of the Scheme as null and void. According to the petitioner, when he left the service in March, 1987, there was no provision for voluntary retirement on completion of 20 years of service, and therefore, he has to necessarily choose only resignation. According to him, inasmuch as the Scheme dos not take into account the prevailing situation for cessation of service before introduction of the provisions for voluntary retirement, on completion of 20 years of service, the same is irrational.