THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY + Writ Petition No. 3607 of 2002 % 21-01-2011 Between: Mrs. Vaidehi Rajagopalan …Petitioner And The Managing Director, State Bank of Hyderbad, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad …Respondent ! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri C. Raghu ^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri Venkat Raghu Ramulu, SC < Gist: > Head Note: Citations: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 3607 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of the State Bank of Hyderabad in the year 1969. By 1991, she has put in 23 years of pensionable service. She submitted a letter dated 26-09-1991 to the Bank, with a request to extend her the benefits of voluntary retirement from Bank service. The Assistant General Manager (Personnel & H.R.D) informed the petitioner, through letter dated 28-12-1991, that the request of the petitioner could have been accepted, if only she had put in 24 years of pensionable service, as per proviso No.4 to Regulation 19(1) of the State Bank of Hyderabad (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 (for short ‘the Service Regulations’), and that her request cannot be acceded to. She was further informed that if she is agreeable, her application would be treated as resignation, with effect from 28-01-1992. Her specific answer in this regard was solicited. It appears that the petitioner responded positively to the letter dated 28-12-1991. Accordingly, the Assistant General Manager passed an order dated 27-01-1992, accepting the resignation of the petitioner, by imposing certain conditions. After the petitioner ceased to be in the service of the Bank, the State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees’) Pension Regulations 1995 (for short ‘the Pension Regulations’) came into force. Clause 3 thereof made the Regulations applicable to those employees, who were in service of the Bank, on or after 01-01-1986, but had retired before 01-11-1993. The petitioner started correspondence with the respondent, stating that her cessation of service with effect from 27-01-1992 must be treated as retirement, and that she be extended the benefit of pension. The respondent refused to accede to the request of the petitioner, and communication in this regard was given to her, on 26-11-2001. The petitioner challenges the letter dated 26-11-2001, and seeks direction to the respondent to pay the pension, calculating the same on the basis of her length of service of 23 years, in accordance with the Pension Regulations. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit, stating that the case of the petitioner was the one, of resignation, pure and simple, and she cannot be treated as having retired from service. It is also stated that it is only with the consent of the petitioner, that her letter of resignation was accepted. Other grounds are also pleaded. Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Service Regulations provide not only for retirement and resignation, but also other kinds of cessation from service. He contends that the petitioner did not submit any letter of resignation as such, and in that view of the matter, she cannot be treated as having resigned to the service. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner comes within the purview of Regulation 9 of the Pension Regulations. Sri Venkat Raghu Ramulu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that though the petitioner made an effort to seek voluntary retirement, the respondent has clearly informed her, that she is not eligible to be extended the facility of V.R.S., in terms of the Service Regulations, and that it is only with her consent, that her request for resignation was acceded to. Learned counsel contends that the purport of Regulation 3 of the Pension Regulations is clear, and the petitioner cannot be brought under its purview. The Service Regulations provide for cessation of different kinds. As in the case of any other service, under the Service Regulations also, an employee would cease to be in service on attaining the age of superannuation, which, at the relevant point of time was 58 years, or on submission of resignation. Another contingency is provided for, in the form of discontinuance in the service. Regulation 20(2) of the Service Regulations reads as under: “20(2): An officer shall not leave or discontinue his service in the bank without first giving a notice in writing of his intention to leave or discontinue the service or resign. The period of notice required shall be 3 months and shall be submitted to the competent authority as prescribed by the Board or the Executive Committee. Provided that a probationary Officer who has entered the service of the Bank as such shall not be entitled to give notice or leave the service of the bank until the expiration of the stipulated period of probation and any breach of this proviso shall entitle the bank to proceed in accordance with the provisions of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 14. Provided further that the competent authority may, at its discretion, permit an officer to resign without notice or forfeiture of security deposit, or payment in lieu of notice or reduce the period of notice”. Though the stipulated age of superannuation is 58 years, a facility of premature retirement is extended, under proviso No.4 to Rule 19(1) of the Service Regulations. It reads as under: “Provided further that an officer who has completed 25 years’ service or 25 years’ pensionable service as the case may be, may be permitted by the Executive Committee to retire from the Bank’s service subject to his giving three months’ notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof unless this requirement is wholly or partly waived”. Except that, there is no other provision for premature retirement or cessation from service. The petitioner submitted application on 26- 09-1991, to relieve from service, in terms of proviso No.4 to Regulation 19(1) of the Service Regulations. The Assistant General Manager of the Bank informed her, through letter dated 28-12-1991, that her pensionable service as on that date is only 23 years, and she does not qualify for the benefit under the provision, relied upon by her. A further offer was made to the effect that, if the petitioner agrees, her application would be treated as the one, of resignation, that too, if she signs on the duplicate of the letter, in token of her consent, for treating her application as the one of resignation. The petitioner agreed for this course of action, and conveyed her consent. Taking the same into account, the Assistant General Manager passed an order dated 27-01-1992, accepting the resignation. About two years after the resignation of the petitioner was accepted, the Pension Regulations came into force. Regulation 3(1) (a) indicates the applicability of the Rules. It reads, “3(1): Application – These regulations shall apply to employees who:- (a) 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; and (b) xxx ” The petitioner wanted to be covered by the Pension Regulations. That would be possible, if only she retired from service before 01-11-1993. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not retire from service, but her cessation was on account of acceptance of resignation. If the petitioner had any reservation about the manner in which the letter dated 27-01-1992 was couched, she ought to have raised objection, then and there. Without any reservation, she accepted the benefit, on acceptance of her letter of resignation. It has already been mentioned that, it is only after the petitioner specifically conveyed her intention to treat her letter dated 26-09-1991, as that of resignation, that the respondent has acted upon it. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have retired from service, when her letter of resignation was accepted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.21-01-2011. Note: L.R copy to be marked. (B/O) KO