MAST RAM Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, who was earlier an employee of the State Bank of Patiala, impleaded as Respondent in this petition, has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Facts as disclosed in the petition may be noticed. The Petitioner was employed as a Teller with Respondent No. 1, i.e. the State Bank of Patiala. He joined service on 22.5.1981. In the year 2001 the Respondent No. 1 introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme known as State Bank of Patiala Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SBPVRS). As per this scheme an employee who had put in l5 years of service or had completed 40 years of age as on 31st December, 2004 was eligible for voluntary retirement. The scheme was open from 15.2.2001 to 1.3.2001. The Petitioner who had put in 19 years and 10 months of service also applied for voluntary retirement. Petitioner claims that at the time of making of the application, he was assured by the officials of the Respondent-Bank that he would be entitled to pension as the Regulations of the Bank provided for grant of pension to the employee who had served for 15 years or more. Petitioner's request for voluntary retirement was acceded to and he was retired. However, no pension was granted to him. He made various representations and exhausted other domestic channels for redressal of his grievance, i.e. grant of pension to him, but to no avail. Ultimately he filed a writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 1102 of 2001 which he withdrew on 19.5.2003 when his Counsel stated that he (Petitioner) intended to seek redressal of his grievance from the Respondent-Bank. The Court ordered that the Petitioner would make a representation within six weeks and directed the Bank to consider the same on merits and to dispose that of within a period of four months and while considering and disposing of the said representation to look into the aspect whether the pension could be granted by relaxation of the pension Regulations in case there was' no specific rule/regulation for grant of pension to the Petitioner. The Petitioner made a representation within the time fixed by this Court vide order dated 19.5.2003. The Respondents considered and rejected the representation vide Annexure F-9. This was also done within the time frame given by the Court vide order dated 19.5.2003 passed in the aforesaid writ petition.

(3.) Now the Petitioner has again approached this Court pleading that the representation has wrongly been rejected. His plea is that he applied for voluntary retirement believing that he would be entitled to pension as he had put in more than 15 years of service. It is alleged that there was a communication dated December 11, 2000 Annexure P-10, addressed by the Indian Banks' Association to all the Banks, including the Respondents-Bank, asking for making amendment in the Pension Regulations so as to provide for grant of pension to those employees, who had put in 15 years of service and wanted to seek voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, that was to come into operation in the first quarter of the year 2001. It is also alleged that the officials of the Respondent-Bank had assured the Petitioner that he would be entitled to pension. In the alternative his plea is that before joining the Bank service he had rendered military service from July, 1963 to April, 1979 and this service was required to be added to the service rendered by him with the Respondent-Bank and when so added the total length of his service crosses the mark of minimum service of 20 years for grant of pension. It is also averred in the petition that the Petitioner has not been even paid the amount of Contributory Provident Fund (wrongly termed as PPF in the petition) and that the omission to pay this amount also suggests that he is entitled to pension because an employee of the Bank is entitled either to pension or the Contributory Provident Fund.