UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. GANESH CHANDRA KONWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether an employee of the Union Bank of India (in short, 'the bank') constituted with the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, who opts to go on voluntary retirement under a Voluntary retirement Scheme (in short, 'VRS'), is entitled to receive pension if he happens to have completed 10 years of service in his employment with the bank, is the question, which has been mooted for decision in this appeal.

(2.) Before we endevour to answer the question, mooted above, it is necessary to take note of the facts and circumstances leading to this appeal, which has been preferred by the bank against the judgment and order, dated 15.05.2007, passed, in WP(C) No. 9612/2003, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition holding that the Respondent herein, who was an employee of the bank, and who has voluntarily retired from service under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, is entitled to receive pension, because he has completed 10 years of regular service.

(3.) By its circular, dated 23.12.2000, the bank introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000, (in short, 'the VRS, 2000') with a view to streamlining the human resources of the bank so as to ensure optimum productivity and profitability. The Respondent herein, who had been serving, at the relevant point of time, as an employee of the bank, having applied for voluntary retirement, under the VRS, 2000, voluntarily retired from service on 14.03.2001. Having so retired, the Respondent applied to the bank for granting him pension too. By its letter, dated 16.07.2003, the bank informed the Respondent that he was not eligible to receive pension as he had not completed 15 years of service at the time of obtaining his release from employment on being voluntarily retired, under the VRS, 2000, inasmuch as it is only an employee, who has completed 15 years of service at the time of obtaining voluntary retirement, under the VRS, 2000, who would be entitled to receive pension in terms of Regulation 28 of the United Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. The refusal of the bank to grant him pension was put to challenge by the Respondent by making an application under Article 226. This application gave rise to WP(C) No. 9612/2003, which came to be disposed of by the judgment and order, dated 15.05.2007, under appeal, whereby the Respondent was held entitled to receive pension on the ground that he had completed 10 years of regular service in the bank and was, according to the learned Single Judge, entitled to receive pension under Regulation 14. The learned Single Judge has accordingly directed the bank to make the pension available to the Respondent. Aggrieved by the direction, so given, the bank is, in appeal, before us.