CWP No.16326 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.16326 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.11.2010 **** Bakshi Ram . . . . Petitioner VS. State Bank of Patiala & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Ravi Badyal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. HN Mehtani, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 1st May, 2006 (Annexure P7) to the extent it restricts the benefit of pension to him for 23 years of ‘qualifying service’ instead of the service of 28 years. (2). The question that requires determination is as to whether or not the petitioner who sought ‘voluntary retirement’ under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) dated 20.01.2001 (Annexure P1) is entitled to the benefit of additional five years of notional service towards the ‘qualifying service’ in terms of Regulation 29(5) of the State Bank of Patiala (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 1995 (in short, ‘the 1995 Regulations’)? CWP No.16326 of 2009.doc - 2 – (3). The petitioner joined the State Bank of Patiala as a Clerk on 06.05.1981. He sought and was granted voluntary retirement under the State Bank of Patiala Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) dated 20.01.2001 (Annexure P1) w.e.f. 29.02.2004 on completion of 23 years of qualifying service. The petitioner, at one point of time, wanted to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement and his request having been declined, he unsuccessfully challenged that decision before this Court in CWP No.4033 of 2004 which was dismissed on December 21, 2007 (Annexure P8). The petitioner now seeks a mandamus to direct the Bank to grant him the benefit of five years’ notional service towards the ‘qualifying service’ as per Regulation 29 of the 1995 Regulations, the relevant part whereof reads as follows:- “29. Pension on Voluntary Retirement:- (1) On or after the 1st day of November, 1993 at any time, after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the competent authority retire from service; xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (5) The qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this regulation shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the CWP No.16326 of 2009.doc - 3 – condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation (Emphasis applied) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (4). The respondent-Bank has filed its reply/affidavit maintaining that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of five years’ notional service under Regulation 29(5) of the 1995 Regulations as he had sought and was granted ‘voluntary retirement’ under the Special Scheme of the Bank which remained in force for a limited period only. Reference is made to the circular issued by the Banking Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that the question posed hereinabove finds a complete answer in favour of the petitioner from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of India and Anr. v. K. Mohandas and others, (2009) 5 SCC 313, wherein the Bank-employee(s) had sought ‘voluntary retirement’ under the VRS introduced by the Punjab National Bank; the Punjab and Sind Bank; Bank of India; Union Bank of India; and the United Bank of CWP No.16326 of 2009.doc - 4 – India. There is indeed no serious dispute that the object of the VRSs introduced by the above-stated Banks or the respondent-Bank bore no noticeable distinction and were brought into force as per the policy decision of the Central Government. It is also the admitted case that the Pension Regulations of the Punjab National Bank and other cited Banks were different than their VRS under which the employees had sought and were granted voluntary retirement(s). The question that arose for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also to the same effect, namely, as to whether or not the employees of these Banks who had got voluntary retirement under the VRS, were entitled to the benefit of five-year additional notional service admissible under the Pension Regulations? (6). Regulation 29(5) of the 1995 Regulations of the above- mentioned Banks considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as follows:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx “29. Pension on Voluntary Retirement:- (1) On or after the 1st day of November, 1993 at any time, after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority retire from service; CWP No.16326 of 2009.doc - 5 – xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (5) The qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this regulation shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation. (Emphasis applied) (7). If one compares the above-reproduced Pension Regulation with Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulation, 1995 of the respondent-Bank as reproduced in para (3) above, it is apparent that the provisions are pari materia as there is no visible distinction which can be drawn by any means. The Apex Court having held that the employees who got voluntary retirement under the VRS were also entitled to the benefit of five years’ notional service towards their ‘qualifying service’ as per the Pension Regulation applicable to them, there is no rhyme or reason or a valid ground of distinction to deprive the petitioner of the similar benefit which is expressly admissible to him under Regulation 29(5) of the 1995 Regulations. (8). Following the dictum in K. Mohandas’s case (supra), I allow the writ petition with a direction to the respondent-Bank to grant the benefit of Regulation 29 CWP No.16326 of 2009.doc - 6 – (5) to the petitioner and re-fix his pensionary benefits accordingly within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and release the consequential benefits within the stipulated period. (9). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 09.11.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE