INDIAN BANK Vs. K RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL against the order dated 6.10.2003 made in W.P.No.11383 of 2001 on the file of this Court.) In all these cases, since common question of law is involved and covered by a decision of the Supreme Court, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE writ petitions have been filed by association of employees of different nationalized banks (Indian Bank, Punjab National Bank, Indian Overseas Bank) and individuals. Those employees of nationalized banks, who opted for voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "VRS 2000"), having denied the benefit of Regulation 29(5) of the Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995 or equivalent regulation, preferred these writ petitions with almost similar prayer to get the entire benefit of such Regulation.

(3.) A number of writ petitions were filed before this Court and other High Courts by the employees of different nationalized Banks against their respective Bank for granting the benefit of additional five years of service under Regulation 29(5). This was opposed by all the Banks on the ground that Regulation 29 is applicable for those who obtain voluntary retirement under Regulation and not applicable to those who have sought for voluntary retirement under VRS 2000. Different High Courts passed contrary decisions. In certain cases, some of the High Courts, while held that those who obtain voluntary retirement under VRS 2000 are entitled to the benefit under Regulation 29(5) or equivalent Regulation, some other High Courts opined that such employees are not entitled to get the benefit under Regulation 29(5) or equivalent Regulation.