N N VEERAPPAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring the non-payment of pension to the petitioner on the ground that he voluntarily retired prior to 01.11.1993 based on the impugned Regulation 2(y) read with Regulations 28 and 29 of the Indian Overseas Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995 as illegal and void and direct the respondents to pay pension to the petitioner with effect from the date of his retirement in accordance with the pension scheme.) The petitioner joined as a Messenger in the 2nd respondent Bank in the year 1960 and later on, he was promoted to the clerical cadre. On 19.09.1988, he submitted his application for voluntary retirement on the ground of ill-health due to hyper tension. But, there was no response to the same, despite two of his subsequent letters. Finally, when he approached the Assistant General Manager (Personnel) at Chennai, he claims, he was asked to submit an application for voluntary retirement along with an amount equivalent to one month's pay and other allowances, in lieu of notice period in accordance with service regulations governing the employees of the Bank. Accordingly, he did on 23.03.1989. The same was accepted with effect from 15.02.1989. He had put in 28 years of service in the Bank. Following his retirement, he was paid gratuity and provident fund by the Bank.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY, Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Pension Regulations, 1995") was introduced in exercise of the power conferred under Clause (f) of sub section (2) of Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings), Act, 1970 (5 of 1970), whereunder, pension option was made available to the employees of the Bank in lieu of the employer's contribution in the Provident Fund on the employees surrendering the same to the Bank According to Clause 29 of the said Pension Regulations, 1995, claiming that he is entitled for pension on voluntary retirement, he applied on 30.11.1993 to the Personnel Administration Department, Central Office for such pension. Finally, by letter dated 05.08.1998, the Chief Officer Pension Cell of the 2nd respondent Bank informed the petitioner that those employees, who had voluntarily retired from the Bank-s service during the period between 01.01.1986 and 31.10.1993 are not eligible for pension in terms of the Pension Regulations, 1995 and the employees who have voluntarily retired on or after 01.11.1993 under Clause 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 are alone eligible for voluntary retirement pension. The petitioner challenges the same in this writ petition and seeks a consequential direction to the respondent Bank to grant him pension as per the Pension Regulations, 1995.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the records carefully.