1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1086 OF 2001 Mr.Shyam A.Mahadik .. Petitioner V/s Reserve Bank of India & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.P.A.Sawant for the Petitioner. None for Respondents. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioner who was in service of the Reserve Bank of India challenges the communication dated 13th March, 1997 by which he has been informed that he is not entitled to pension because of the provisions of Regulation No.18 of the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990. 2. The petitioner joined service of the Reserve Bank of India in February 1976. Due to his problems he submitted letter dated 25th March, 1995 seeking voluntary retirement from service, and alternatively he also requested in the said letter that if according to Bank he is not entitled for voluntary retirement then his letter should be treated as resignation. By communication dated 27th March, 1995 the 2 petitioner was informed that his letter has been treated as his resignation from service of the Bank from 27th March, 1995. Thereafter the petitioner applied for payment of Provident Fund or in the alternative for pension because he had completed 19 years of service. By communication dated 13th March, 1997 he was informed that he is not entitled to Bank’s contribution to provident fund because he had opted for pension scheme and that he is not entitled to pension though he has completed 19 years of service because of Regulation No.18 of the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990. 3. We have been given a copy of the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990. They came into force from 1st November, 1990 and Regulation 3 contained in Chapter II thereof lays down that these Regulations apply to the employees who joined Bank’s service on or before 1st November, 1990. The petitioner had joined Bank’s service before 1st November, 1990. The Regulation also applies to the employees who are in service of Bank on 1st November, 1990 subject to their giving option that they will not be governed by these Regulations. According to the petitioner, Regulation No.18 did not apply to him. 4. Though the Reserve Bank of India is served, they have not filed any affidavit controverting the position that Regulation No.18 does not 3 apply to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that as the petitioner has completed 19 years of service, denial of pension to him is unreasonable. In our opinion, considering the material presently available on record and as the Reserve Bank of India has chosen not to file any affidavit in the matter, following order would meet the ends of justice: ORDER “The order dated 13th March, 1997 declining request of the petitioner for pension relying on Regulation 18 of the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990, is set aside. The Competent Authority of Reserve Bank of India is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for pension in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date on which the writ of this order is received by the Reserve Bank of India, by a reasoned order. Before rejecting that request the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.” (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)