RAJAN N S Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent in the writ petition, is the appellant before us.

(2.) THE challenge is to the order of the learned single Judge, holding that the complaint preferred by the appellant before the second respondent herein, i. e. District Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai North, was without jurisdiction and thereby the second respondent was restrained from proceeding with the complaint by the issuance of a Writ of prohibition.

(3.) THE brief facts which are required to be stated for the disposal of this Writ Appeal, are that the appellant was an employee of the first respondent bank. Pursuant to the Voluntary retirement Scheme (in short, VRS) thrown open by the first respondent bank in 2000, the appellant submitted his application expressing his willingness to go under the VRS. The appellant along with 3295 employees, was allowed to go under the VRS. It is stated that for the VRS employees, their pension settlement was made in a duration of three to four months. Out of them, 144 employees filed complaints before the second respondent alleging deficiency in service. The specific allegation of deficiency was stated to have included non addition of five years weightage to the qualifying service, non-including of certain components of wages while calculating the last drawn basic pay, non- settlement of pension immediately after one month from the date of retirement, failure to pay the commuted pension on the relevant due date and non-payment of interest for the delayed payment of pension apart from a reduction made in the pension at the time of its payment.