(1.) An order-cum-Judgment by the learned single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition at the motion hearing stage itself is in challenge in this appe:al. In that, the learned Judge has directed the original respondent, Punjab National Bank (hereinafter called the 'Bank' for short) to release the retirement benefits in terms of the Pension Scheme opted by the petitioner at the time of the submission of the proposal for voluntary retirement. The Bank was directed to comply with the order within one month failing which an interest at the rate of 18% per annum an the amount would be payable to the petitioners. Following factual mattrix will help us understand the controversy involved. Contention in Writ Petition
(2.) The respondents Nos.l to 8 herein, being the retired Bank Officers working in the Punjab National Bank, along with their Representative Association, respondent No.9, filed this writ petition praying, inter alia, for a writ of mandamus commanding; the Banks Authority to release the pensionary benefits in favour of the eight petitioners therein and the concerned members of the petitioner No.9 Association on the basis of Regulation 29(5) of Pension Regulations applicable to the Bank. In addition to that, the petitioners also claimed the differential amount on account of commutation pension as also the arrears of the pension on the basis of the calculations made in terms of Regulation 29(5). Interest of 21% on the arrears was also prayed for. Shortly stated, the case of the petitioners was that the petitioners Nos.l to 8 and the other concerned members of the Association, petitioner No.9, were working in the different branches and had put in substantial number of years of service. While so working, they received an offer of a Scheme called, PNB Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 on 29.9.2000. The Scheme was to remain in operation on 1.11.2000 to 30.11.2000 and under the said Scheme, all permanent and full time employees of the Bank were eligible to seek voluntary retirement provided they fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In that Scheme, only the oflicers who had put in minimum 15 years of service or who were 40 years of age, were liable to take part. The employees seeking the voluntary retirement under the Scheme were to be entitled to ex-gratia amount mentioned in paragraph 3.3 of the offer or the Scheme. It was as under:
(3.) The petitioners, therefore, redied on clause 3.5(ii) and claimed in the writ petition that they were entitled to pension as per the PNB (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. The petitioners then pointed out that they all opted for the voluntary retirement and their offer was accepted by the Bank. Under the aforementioned clause 3.5(ii), they were entitled to the pension under the PNB Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. Accordingly, their pension was liable to be calculated taking into account and on the basis of Regulation 29(5) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' Regulations. They pointed out that it was on this basis that they accepted the scheme and while calculating their pension as per the Pension Scheme, Regulation (5) could not have been ignored. The Bank, however, did not calculate the pension on the basis of Regulation 29 generally and more particularly, sub-regulation(5) thereof. Regulation 29 is under chapter V, which pertains to 'Classes of Pension'. Regulation 29 pertains to 'Pension on Voluntary Retirement'. The whole Regulation 29 runs as under: