CECIL DENNIS SOLOMON Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions raise identical questions of law for adjudication and, therefore, are disposed of by this common order. All the three petitioners in these two petitions are employees of the Reserve Bank of India and have resigned from their service after rendering service of more than twenty years. After resignation, they have claimed pensionary benefits which were rejected by the Reserve Bank of India by passing appropriate orders. This rejection is questioned in both these petitions.

(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 615 of 1996 the petitioners have claimed a declaration that Regulation 18 of Pension Regulation, 1990 be declared unconstitutional as it is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory whereas the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2586 of 97 has claimed that Regulation 26 (3-A) of the Reserve Bank of India Staff Regulations, 1948 is not prospective in nature and, therefore, petitioner is entitled to grant of benefit of pension as his resignation is equivalent to voluntary retirement. The petitioners have, therefore, challenged by these petitions the rejection of their claim for pensionary benefits.

(3.) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2586 of 1987 made two representations for grant of pensionary benefits. The first was made immediately after he resigned on 5-6-1990 and in response to his another representation dated 12-11-1990, it was informed to him by the respondent bank that his request cannot be acceded in view of the provisions of Regulation 18 of the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990. It is this communication dated 15th December, 1990 which is also impugned in Writ Petition No. 2586 of 1997. After amendment to the Staff Regulations of 1948 and introduction of Regulation 26 (3-A), the petitioner again made representation dated 25th April, 1991 for grant of pensionary benefits claiming that his resignation be treated as equal to voluntary retirement. This representation was also rejected on the ground that Regulation 26 (3-A) is made applicable from 2-6-1992 and the petitioner having resigned prior to that date, he is not entitled to the relief as claimed. This representation was also rejected.