JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)HEARD Mr. Rajesh P. Mankad, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Varun K. Patel,
learned advocate for the respondent Bank. By way
of this petition, the petitioner claims pension
from the respondent Bank.
(2.)THE facts as emerge from record are as under.
2.2 The petitioner was in service of the respondent Bank. The Bank passed an order on 17.03.1986 inflicting penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner, following a domestic inquiry. 2.3 The said action of the respondent Bank is not the subject matter of this petition. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court. Challenge to the said order before this Court was rejected, however, ultimately, Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2029 of 1990 (SLP No.12362 of 1988) on 23.04.1990, after hearing the Bank, passed the following order: "Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and having heard counsel for the respondents, it is directed that the appellant's termination of service is set aside and the respondents will permit the appellant to retire voluntarily with all retiral benefits for which he is entitled to according to law from the bank from the date of his voluntary retirement." 2.4 Thus the petitioner stood voluntarily retired from the service of the respondent Bank with effect from 17.03.1986.
Learned advocate for the petitioner stated that in the Nationalized Banks, including the
respondent Bank, the pension scheme came to be
introduced in the year 1995. The said pension
scheme is made effective from 01.01.1986. It is
stated that those who opt for voluntary
retirement are entitled to pension. It is further
contended that those who had retired voluntarily
after 01.01.1986 were also treated to be entitled
to claim pension. It is stated that in view of
the order of Honourable the Supreme Court of
India, the date of voluntary retirement of the
petitioner is 17.03.1986. Under these
circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to
pension and denial by the respondent Bank is
illegal and arbitrary. Learned advocate for the
petitioner has also relied on the decision of
this Court recorded on Special Civil Application
No.2738 of 2001. It is stated that, in the said
petition, in almost identical circumstances,
against the respondent Bank itself, this Court
had given directions and similar directions be
issued in the present case as well.
(3.)ON the other hand learned advocate Mr.Patel for the respondent Bank vehemently contended that
the voluntary retirement of the petitioner was
not under the normal rules of the respondent Bank
and therefore he is not entitled to pension. He
has also relied on the affidavit-in-reply filed
by the respondent Bank. It is further contended
that the decision of this Court in Special Civil
Application No.2738 of 2001 was in the facts of
that case and therefore the same will not have
any applicability in the facts of this case.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.