IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 7931 of 2001 ( O&M )
DATE OF DECISION : 15.07.2009
Ram Chander Krothwal
.... PETITIONER
Versus
Punjab National Bank and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Yashdeep Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Bajwa, Advocate,
for the respondents.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )
The petitioner, who is working as Clerk-cum-Cashier-cum-
Godown Keeper in Punjab National Bank, Halu Bazar, Bhiwani, has filed
the instant petition for quashing the order dated 20.4.2001 (Annexure P-4),
whereby his claim for pension was rejected on the ground that he had not
completed the minimum period of service of 20 years under the Punjab
National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred
to as `the Pension Regulations’).
It is the case of the petitioner that under the Voluntary
Retirement Scheme, 2000, he applied for voluntary retirement. His request
CWP No. 7931 of 2001 -2-
was accepted and he was granted voluntary retirement on 20.12.2000. As
per the said Scheme, an employee can seek voluntary retirement after
completion of 15 years of service or 40 years of age. On the day, when the
petitioner was granted voluntary retirement, he was over 40 years of age and
had completed more than 10 years of service. It is the case of the petitioner
that under Regulation 14 of the Pension Regulations, he became entitled for
pension, as he was having to his credit more than 10 years of qualifying
service. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the
petitioner was entitled for pension only on completion of 20 years of
qualifying service under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations.
The similar controversy came before this Court in CWP No.
1350 of 2005, titled as Dharam Pal Singh versus Punjab National Bank,
which was allowed on 25.1.2008, while observing as under :-
“The arguments that the claim of the petitioner for
pension is governed by Regulation 29 is wholly misconceived.
Regulation 29 i.e. Pension on Voluntary Retirement, is
complete code in itself. Under the said Regulation, pension is
payable to an employee who has completed twenty years of
qualifying service who has given notice of not less than three
months in writing. Still further, the employee has a right to seek
withdrawal of his offer for voluntary retirement before the
retirement becomes effective.
Neither the petitioner has given three months notice nor
the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that
he has not completed 20 years of qualifying service. If
Regulation 29 is to be extended to the petitioner then he had a
CWP No. 7931 of 2001 -3-right to seek withdrawal of his offer to seek voluntary
retirement as well. Therefore, the respondent Bank has rightly
not relied upon Regulation 29 in the reply filed.
Regulation 29 is a general Regulation which is applicable
to all the employees of the Bank independent of the Scheme. If
an employee of the Bank completes 20 years of qualifying
service, he is entitled to voluntary retirement. Such is the
retirement falling within the meaning of section 2 (y) (b) of the
Regulations. The Scheme under which the petitioner has opted
for retirement is not part of the Regulations. Pension
Regulations became applicable to the petitioner in terms of
clause 3.5 of the Scheme. Therefore, Regulation 29 cannot be
extended to in respect of the claim of the petitioner for pension.
As per Scheme, the eligibility to seek retirement is after
15 years of qualifying service or 40 years of age. The petitioner
is over 40 years of age and has 10 years of qualifying service.
Such service under Regulation 14 is the qualifying service for
payment of dues on retirement. The petitioner fulfils the said
condition. Clause 3.5 of the Scheme extends benefit of pension
under Pension Regulations. As per Regulation 14, 10 years is
the period of qualifying service. Therefore, a co-joint reading of
the eligibility condition and the benefits payable under the
Scheme read with Regulation 14, the petitioner is entitled to
pension.
The decision in Annexure P-7 cannot be made applicable
to the petitioner for the reason that the same has been
communicated after the petitioner opted for retirement under
the Scheme. Still further, the said decision is in the nature of
executive instructions and, therefore, cannot override the
Scheme for voluntary retirement published and the Pension
CWP No. 7931 of 2001 -4-Regulations. Therefore, the provision of 15 years qualifying
service for grant of pension is ineffective qua the rights of the
petitioner for grant of pension under the Pension Regulations.
In view thereof, present petition is allowed. The
petitioner is held entitled to pension under the Pension
Regulations. The respondents shall take appropriate steps for
payment of pension to the petitioner within three months from
today.”
The instant petition was admitted on September 12, 2001. Now,
the petitioner has filed an application (CM No. 7989 of 2009) to allow the
writ petition in terms of the aforesaid judgment. Pursuant to the notice, Shri
G.S. Bajwa, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the respondents. He has
very fairly stated that the controversy involved in this writ petition has
already been decided by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, which goes in
favour of the petitioner. However, he submits that against the said judgment
of this Court, SLP has been filed, which is pending before the Supreme
Court, though no stay has been granted.
In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed in the same
terms, as in CWP No. 1350 of 2005, titled as Dharam Pal Singh versus
Punjab National Bank, decided on 25.1.2008.
July 15, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE