ASHIS ROY Vs. THE CHAIRMAN, UBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is another of the misconceived petitions that are carried to court on the encouragement of not incurring penal costs upon the exercise having discovered to be flippant. The entire claim in the petition is founded on a judgment rendered by the High Court of Karnataka on April 18, 2012 in WP Nos. 24158 -24160 of 2011 (C. Narasimhappa v. Vijaya Bank).

(2.) The essential facts relevant for the present purpose may be mentioned. The petitioner herein joined the service of United Bank of India in June, 1971 and he resigned with effect from January 31, 1995. It is the admitted position that at the time that the petitioner was employed, there was no provision for payment of pension to the employees of the bank. The pension provisions were introduced later in 1995 and the United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 provide for the applicability of the regulations to employees who were in service of the bank on or after January 1, 1986 but had retired before November 1, 1993 and those who had retired on or after November 1, 1993 but before the notified date of sometime in September, 1995. The said regulations also contain a specific clause pertaining to forfeiture of service. Regulation 22(1) of the said regulations under Chapter IV, which is intituled as Qualifying Service, provides for the following :

(3.) On the clear terms of the said regulations of 1995, the petitioner was not qualified to receive any pension upon the petitioner resigning with effect from January 31, 1995. That should have been the end of the matter. The petitioner was obviously misguided on the strength of the Karnataka judgment that does not have any manner of application to the petitioner's case.