RAJO BEGUM Vs. PUNJAB & SIND BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner through the medium of this petition filed in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the order passed in the month of September, 2011 whereby she was retired from service and to command the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till she reached the age of superannuation i.e September 2021 or in alternative direct the respondents to release the monthly pension of the petitioner Sr. No. along with arrears from the date she came to be illegally superannuated along with interest.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she came to be appointed as Part Time Sweeper (Safaiwala) in Punjab and Singh Bank Limited, having its newly established Branch at Batote about 25 years ago, initially at a monthly wages of Rs.20.00 and thereafter was put on consolidated salary; that subsequently vide Order No. ZO.JSP.SWEEPER.2 dtd. 12/9/2007, services of the petitioner came to be regularized and as per terms of the regularization order, the petitioner was called upon to produce fitness certificate issued by the competent Medical Officer and also proof of date of birth; that besides confirming the services of the petitioner, she was put in regular pay scale of Rs.4060.00105/2-4270-115/2, 4500-135/2-4770- 165/3-5265-195/4-6045-235/3-6750-270/3-7560, with proportionate annual increment plus dearness allowance. The permanent employee certificate came to be issued in her favour as well as the regular pay scale certificate; that the petitioner after being confirmed contributed to GP fund as well as the pension contribution under the provisions of the Punjab and Sind Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995.

(3.) It has been further alleged that during the year 2010-11, respondent No.5 Incharge Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank Batote, knowing that the petitioner was uneducated lady, retired her from service without the petitioner having reached the age of superannuation, which was to come in the month of September, 2021, as per her date of birth; that the petitioner challenges the order of retirement passed against her to be illegal and against the rules and being premature.