THIRIKOODA RAJPPA P Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the Order of the second respondent made in Per/cks/83-97, dated january 16, 1997 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to calculate and pay the pension to the petitioner adding five years to the qualifying service.

(2.) THE brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this case are as follows: the petitioner was directly recruited as an officer in South India Bank Ltd. After completing nearly ten years of service, he applied for the post of Officer in Vijaya Bank ltd. , which was then a private bank. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Level officer permanently on April 21, 1975. Vijaya bank Ltd. was nationalised by Act 40 of 1980; it has, wholly, become an undertaking of the government of India. Vijaya Bank Officers service Regulations made by the Board of director of Vijaya Bank were made applicable to all the Officers of the bank who were serving at the time of taking over by the Government. After completing nearly 21. years and 4 months of service in Vijaya Bank, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation in december, 1996 and hence he was retired on december 31, 1996. On his retirement, he became eligible for pension as per the provisions of Vijaya Bank Employees' Pension regulations, 1995, which came into force on september 29, 1995; these regulations were approved by the Ministry of Finance, government of India as also by the Reserve bank of India. The Regulations were made applicable to all the employees who were in service on the notified date, namely, September 29, 1995, provided they exercise their option to come under Pension Regulations. The petitioner had opted to come under Pension regulations. Regulation 26 of the Pension regulations provides for addition to qualifying service in certain special circumstances. According to that Regulation:

(3.) A counter has been filed by the third respondent, in which it is stated that the petitioner joined duty on August 7, 1975. The petitioner does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Regulation 26 and therefore he would not be eligible for any additional qualifying service for superannuation/pension. The upper age limit in 1975 for direct recruitment as junior Level Officer was 35 and not 25 as stated by the petitioner. Further, Regulation 26 (a)would be applicable only if the service or post is one for which certain special qualification or experience - scientific, technological or professional field is essential; the post to which he was appointed never required any special qualification or experience. The petitioner does not qualify to get the benefits of Regulation 26. The second proviso to Regulation 26 would apply only if the recruitment rules contained specific provisions that the service or post is one which carries benefit of this regulation. Neither the earlier Rules, under which the petitioner was recruited, nor the present Rules stipulate that the post of "officer" shall carry the benefit of Regulation 26. The third proviso stipulates that the benefit would apply only if the recruitment rules in respect of service or post, which carries the benefit of this regulation, were made with the approval of the Central Government. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal.