S RENGARAJ Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking to quash the impugned order dated 24.10.2001 and for directing the respondents to grant pensionary benefits on their going on voluntary retirement under thePunjab National Bank Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 (for short "PNBVRS). Under the impugned order dated 24.10.2001, the respondent Bank advised the petitioners that they must have put in minimum service of 15 years for the purpose of getting pension and that since they have not put in 15 years of service, they are not eligible for getting pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995 and accordingly, rejected the cases of the petitioners.

(2.) THE respondent Bank has filed a counter affidavit stating that that the petitioners had gone on Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short, "VRS") and under Clause 7 of the Scheme, an employee seeking for voluntary retirement will be eligible for the other benefits in addition to the ex-gratia amount, namely, the gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act and pension in terms ofPunjab National Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 or Bank's contribution towards Provident Fund. Apart from this, they will be entitled to get leave encashment. For the purpose of getting pension under thePunjab National Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, one should have put in 15 years of service or must have completed 40 years of age, but under the PNBVRS, the employees with 15 years of service alone are eligible to seek voluntary retirement under the scheme and there is no provision under the Pension Regulations to make them eligible for pension. THE respondent Bank contacted the Indian Bank Association (for short, "IBA") and the said IBA took up the matter with the Government of India. Under the advise tendered by them, the respondent Bank amended Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulations with the approval of the Board of Directors in exercise of its statutory powers under Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Transfer) of Undertakings Act, 1970.

(3.) MR.S.Jayaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank produced before us the Statutory Regulations relating to the writ petitioner Bank wherein no such discretion is found to have been granted to the Bank in case an employee falls short of the required minimum service for getting pension. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment has no application to the case of the petitioners.