HARI SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing of the letter dated 20.3.2001, Annexure P/6 annexed to the writ petition, vide which the claim of the petitioner for pension has been rejected.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Cashier-cum-godown keeper with the State Bank of Patiala. Thereafter, he was promoted to the Officer Scale of the Bank and from there he retired as District Coordinator Officer on 1.10.1991. Because of the family circumstances, the petitioner thought of taking premature retirement, as he had already served for a period of 29 years. The petitioner submitted his application on 14.9.1991, which the respondents accepted and the petitioner was relieved of his duties on 26th September, 1991. The bank framed a policy/scheme for providing pensionary benefits to the employees who had voluntarily retired from the bank on or after 1.1.1993 after competing 20 years of qualifying service. Similar benefits were also extended under the policy of the bank to the persons, who retired during 1.11.1981 to 31st October, 1993. The circular this effect was issued by the respondents-bank on 7.12.2000. The petitioner submitted necessary documents and he claimed the pensionary and other benefits, as according to the petitioner he had been voluntarily retired on 26th September, 1991 and as such was entitled to the benefits in terms of the circular. However, this request of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide their letter dated 20th March, 2001, Annexure P/6, annexed to the petition.

(3.) The respondents contested this petition primarily on the ground that the petitioner had resigned voluntarily. His resignation has been accepted and as per the regulation governing the service condition of the bank employees upon acceptance of resignation, the entire service would stands forfeited and the petitioner would be entitled to no benefits whatsoever. In this regard, reference has been made to regulation 22 of the State Bank of Patiala (Employees Pension Regulation) 1995. According to the respondents-bank, the petitioner had mis-represented the facts in Annexure P/5. The petitioner submitted his papers of 28th January, 2001 and resultantly, the petitioner was informed vide. Annexure P/6 of rejection of his request. The order of the bank dated 20th March, 2001 is stated to be legal and in consonance with the rules.