BANK OF INDIA Vs. SAHAJANAND RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge, dtd. 22/3/2023, in Writ-A No. 53237 of 2014 whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the respondent-petitioner is held entitled to retiral benefits in light of Clause 6(b) of Memorandum of Settlement, dtd. 10/4/2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Settlement, 2002'), notwithstanding a contrary circular issued by the Bank. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda Vs. S.K. Kool (Dead) through Legal Representatives and another, (2014) 2 SCC 715, to allow the claim of respondent-petitioner.

(2.) Facts admitted on record are that the respondent-petitioner was employed as Cashier-cum-Clerk in the appellant Bank of India. He was proceeded with departmentally on various charges and ultimately an order of punishment came to be passed against him on 19/9/2002, directing his removal from the service in terms of Clause 6(b) of the Settlement, 2002. This order of punishment was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondent and ultimately his Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 30627 of 2010 got dismissed on 15/11/2010.

(3.) Pensionary benefits to the employees of bank were governed by the provisions of Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'Pension Regulations, 1995'). Regulation 2(t) of the Pension Regulations of 1995 defined 'pension' to include the basic pension and additional pension referred to in Chapter VI of the Pension Regulations, 1995. Pensioner meant an employee eligible for pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995. Qualifying service has been defined under Regulation 2(w) and together with Regulation 14 provides it to mean a minimum of 10 years of service in the Bank on the date of his retirement.