U C O BANK Vs. SANWAR MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff respondent's claim for pension having been upheld by both the Courts, the Bank has filed this second appeal. A few facts :-- The plaintiff-respondent had joined service as a Peon with the UCO Bank on December 29, 1959. In the year 1980 he was promoted to the post of Clerk. In February 1988 he requested the Bank to relieve him of his duties so as to enable him to start his own work. On March 24, 1988 the respondent was relieved from the service of the Bank.

(2.) ON May 27, 1994, the Bank circulated a letter regarding the implementation of the pension scheme, it was stated that this scheme shall be applicable to the employees who have retired on or after January 1, 1986 and before November 1, 1993. The employees had to exercise "irrevocable option" within four months. They were required to refund the Bank's entire contribution to' Provident Fund including interest received thereon along with simple interest of 6% per annum from the date of withdrawal till the date of refund. On September 29, 1995 the Bank framed Regulations called the UCO Bank (Employees) Pension' Regulations, 1995. These Regulations were inter-alia made applicable to employees who were in the service of the Bank on or after the 1st day of January 1986 but had retired before the 1st day of November 1993. By Regulation '5' it was provided that "the Bank shall constitute a Fund to be called the UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Fund". There was also provision for the constitution of a Board of Trustees. Regulation '14' provided that "subject to the other conditions contained in these, regulations, an employee who has rendered a minimum often years of service in the Bank on the date of his retirement or the date on which he is deemed to have retired shall qualify for pension". Under the Regulations, even the service on probation and the period during which an employee remained on leave was also countable towards the qualifying service. Regulation '22' inter-alia provided that "resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits".

(3.) IT appears that in response to the Circular of May 27, 1994 the plaintiff-respondent gave his option for the grant of benefit under the pension scheme. However, the papers were returned in original vide letter dated October 17, 1994 on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent having resigned cannot be said to have retired. Thus, he was not qualified, for the grant of pension. Faced with this situation, the respondent had filed a suit for a declaration that he was entitled to the pension. He had also prayed for the issued of a mandatory injunction directing the Bank to make the payment of all the arrears along with interest.