GEJO Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed the instant petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to release the payment of balance amount of gratuity, medical allowance, leave encashment and all other admissible retiral benefits to her. A further prayer has been made to direct the Respondents to release the pension and its arrears to the Petitioner along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(2.) The pleaded case of the Petitioner is that she was employed with the Respondents as Kahar on 13.5.1968 and retired therefrom in February, 2004. She, thus, contends that having worked with the Respondents on a fixed salary and having served them for a period of 35 years, she was entitled to pension and other retiral benefits.

(3.) The Respondents have not denied the factum of service rendered by the Petitioner to their organisation. They have, however, pleaded that she is not entitled to pension and her case was not covered under the State Bank of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short, 'the Regulations').