DASU SUBBA LAKSHMI Vs. INDIAN BANK CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the 1st respondent-Bank as Probationery Officer on 25.4.1977. Ever since then she has been serving the bank at various places in one capacity or the other. The bank had introduced the Indian Bank Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "Pension Regulations") and the Pension Regulations came to be adopted by the bank under Section 19(1) of the Banking Companies Act, 1970 after having been accorded approval by the Reserve Bank of India and the Central Government.

(2.) The Pension Regulations provide for exercising of option by the employees for the Pension Scheme. Such options were to be exercised by submitting application/ declaration in ANnexure - B on or before 26.1.1996. On such option being exercised, the Provident Fund Account of the employee stands transferred to the Pension Fund and the employee will become eligible to be paid pension on retirement. The Rules also contemplated voluntary retirement by such of the employees who complete 20 years of qualifying service. It is the case of the petitioner that consequent upon adoption of the Pension Regulations, she has submitted her application/option in Annexure-B on 18.12.1995. She also states that her option letter, together with those of six other employees, were forwarded by the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent with a covering letter. It is stated that the same has been sent through Courier and have been received by the concerned authority. When the acknowledgments were not received by the office of the 4th respondent, letters dated 8.2.1996 and 22.2.1997 were addressed by the 4th respondent.

(3.) Petitioner claims to have submitted an application on 3.10.1997 requesting the bank to extend her, the facility of voluntary retirement. The same was not considered by the bank on the ground that she has not exercised the option to come under the Pension Scheme. Several letters and much correspondence ensued in this regard and ultimately she was addressed a letter dated 24.7.1998 stating that the request for voluntary retirement cannot be entertained and no more correspondence will be undertaken in this regard. The petitioner states that having regard to the pressing family problems she was left with no other alternative but to submit her resignation on 10.11.1998 and the same was accepted on 7.12.1998. The petitioner states that she submitted her representations on 26.3.1999 and 23.4.1999 requesting that she be extended the facility of voluntary retirement duly adjusting the amounts paid to her on acceptance of resignation.