DR. T. RAMASAMY Vs. THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL), PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the relief of quashment of the orders of the third respondent passed on 29.09.2011 in proceedings No. Ref.CO/Pension Cell/8565/2011-12 and the Fourth respondent passed on 12.03.2012 in Proceedings No. Ref.CO/Pension Cell/586/2011-12 rejecting the representation of the petitioner to extend him the benefit of 5 years increase service in calculating the qualifying service for pension, as per Regulation 29 (5) of the Indian Overseas Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation 1995 (herein after referred to as "the regulation") and direct the respondent no. 3 to extend such benefit to him, exercising the power of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner had joined in the services of the respondents as a Probationary Officer on 07.12.1981 and sought for voluntary retirement, while serving as Deputy Chief Officer, Legal Service Department, Central office, under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2000 floated by the employer-Bank, which was accepted on 30.06.2001. The petitioner, on the date of his Voluntary Retirement, had rendered totally 19 years 6 months and 24 days of service. The petitioner was granted Ex-gratia under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2000, and also other benefit rounding up his aforesaid service to 20 years. So also, the petitioner having rendered more than 15 years of service was also granted pension under the Regulation inasmuch as the regulation provides to grant pension to the employees who opt for Voluntary Retirement under the aforesaid scheme after rendering 15 years of service. The grievance of the petitioner is that though under the Regulation 29(5) an employee seeking, the Voluntary Retirement after putting 20 years of service is entitled to weightage of 5 years of more service in calculating of his pension and petitioner's service, in this case, was rounded up to 20 years, still he was denied 5 years more service weightage in calculation of pension. The petitioner, however, made grievance in not extending him the benefit of five years increased service in calculation of pension as provided in Regulation 29(5) of the Regulations. His such representation having been rejected vide the impugned order dated 29.09.2011 and also 12.03.2012 as stated above by the respondents, he has filed this writ petition to quash the same inasmuch as the same is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions prescribed in Regulation, so also the law laid down in this regard by the Apex Court with a further prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, more particularly the 3rd respondent to extend the benefit of five years more of increased service as provided in Regulation 29(5) of the Regulations in calculation of his pension and release the monetary benefit thereof.

(3.) The respondent has filed the counter affidavit indicating therein that the petitioner having not rendered 20 years of actual service before taking voluntary retirement under the scheme, even though he was entitled to pension in view of the proviso to Regulation 28 of the Regulations having rendered 15 years of service, he was not entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29(5) of the Regulations, therefore, his representation in this regard was rejected vide the impugned orders. The contention of the petitioner that since his service has been rounded up to 20 years in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations and he having been taken voluntary retirement thereafter, he is entitled to five years more of service weightage devoid of merit in view of the fact that such rounding up was made in view of section 4(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act which prescribes that any period more than six months is taken as one year for calculation of the gratuity. Furthermore, it has also been averred that since the petitioner had not rendered 20 years of actual service in view of the proviso to Section 18 of the Regulations, such rounding up cannot inure to his benefit for purpose of calculation of 20 years of service making him eligible for voluntary retirement under Regulation 29 of the Regulations and, as such, he cannot be extended with the benefit of Regulation 29(5) of the Regulations. In the aforesaid premises, it has been averred that the petitioner claim in this writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.