JATINDRA NATH PRADHAN Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Jatindra Nath Pradhan, by filing the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution, sought for cancellation/quashing of the communication dated 14th June, 2000, being Annexure-P-7 to the writ application. By such communication, the respondent bank authorities informed the petitioner that since he resigned from banks service, he was not eligible for pension under the then existing CBI (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995.

(2.) GRIEVANCES of the petitioner may briefly be stated as follows:-The petitioner joined the service under the Central Bank of India on 10th September, 1953. After serving in various capacities, on 24th June, 1992 he sought for voluntary retirement since he became seriously ill. But the said application for voluntary retirement was not accepted. He then retired on and from 1st July, 1992. After retirement, he came to know about his eligibility of receiving pension under the proposed Central Bank of India employees (Pension) Regulations, 1993. The said Regulation provided that the retirees between the period from 1. 1. 1986 and 31. 10. 1993 would be eligible to commute pension after they were found medically fit by the banks doctor/banks approved doctor. Pursuant to the said arrangement, the petitioner exercised his option by his letter dated 27th May, 1994 and informed the Trustee of Central Bank of India Employees Provident Fund accordingly by his letter dated 28th November, 1994. Simultaneously, by filling up the option form dated 27. 5. 1994, the petitioner declared to undertake to refund the banks contribution to provident fund together with accrued interest thereon till the date of such refund. There had been no response from the side of the authorities. The petitioner subsequently came to know that the employees, who voluntarily retired from service in between 1. 1. 1986 and 31. 10. 1993, were eligible for the benefit of the concerned Pension regulations. The Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 were applicable to the employees who were in the service of the bank on or after the 1st day of january, 1986 but had retired before 1st day of November, 1993.

(3.) THE petitioner subsequently could also learn that Honble Apex Court in Civil appeal No. 6959 of 1997 held that the pensionery benefits were applicable uniformly to all bank employees including those who took voluntary retirement during the period from 1. 1. 1986 to 31. 10. 1993. Being emboldened with such decision of the Apex Court, the petitioner made an application before the concerned authority for grant of pension. He filled up the letter of option on 10. 7. 2000 for refund of banks contribution to provident fund for opting for the banks pension scheme. The petitioner, however, by communication dated 14th June, 2000 was informed that since he had resigned from banks service on 24. 6. 1992, he was not eligible for pension under the existing CBI (Employees) Pension regulations, 1995. He was further informed that the pensionery benefits were to be granted only to those employees who had voluntarily retired during the period from 1. 1. 1986 to 31. 10. 1993 in terms of specific scheme formulated by the banks board pursuant to the proviso to Regulation 19 of the Officers Service Regulations. Such stand on the part of the respondent authority is illegal and is violation of the principles of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.