C.W.P. No.7812 of 2002(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.7812 of 2002(O&M) DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 28, 2009 Birbal Sharma .....PETITIONER Versus Punjab National Bank and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.H.C. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.G.S. Bajwa, Advocate, for the respondents. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner, who was working as Peon-cum-Guard, has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.12.2000 (Annexure P4) issued by respondent No.3 conveying to the petitioner of his acceptance for voluntary retirement request and relieving him with immediate effect despite the said offer of voluntary retirement having been withdrawn by the petitioner before its acceptance by respondent No.2. In alternative, a prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 4.1.2002 (Annexure P7) whereby the grant of pension was declined to the petitioner. This writ petition was admitted on 11.03.2004. Now the petitioner has filed C.M. No.8087 of 2008 for disposing of the writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Dharam Pal Singh v. Punjab National Bank C.W.P. No.7812 of 2002(O&M) -2- and others, 2008(1) SCT 739. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now the petitioner confines his prayer only to the extent of quashing the order dated 4.1.2002 (Annexure P7), whereby the petitioner has been denied the pension. He submits that vide said order, the petitioner has been denied the pension only on the ground that the petitioner had not put in 15 years of service and according to the Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as `the Pension Regulations'), a person who has put in less than 15 years of service is not eligible for pension. Undisputedly at the time of voluntary retirement the petitioner had completed more than 11 years of service. According to the learned counsel, in terms of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 and the Pension Regulations, an employee is entitled for pension if he has completed 10 years of qualifying service in bank on the date of his retirement. He further submitted that as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, an employee of the respondent-bank, who was 40 years of age or had completed 15 years of service, was eligible for seeking voluntary retirement. According to the learned counsel, the controversy whether an employee of the respondent- bank, who was having 10 years or more service, even though he had sought voluntarily retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, is entitled for pension, has been finally determined by the aforesaid Division Bench decision, wherein it has been held as under:- “13. 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 C.W.P. No.7812 of 2002(O&M) -3- 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. 14. 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 fulfills 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. 15. 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 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. 16. 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.” In view of the above, counsel for the petitioner contends that the alternative prayer made by the petitioner, is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. Counsel for the respondents has not controverted this factual and legal position. Concededly, in SLP filed against the aforesaid judgment, no stay has been granted. C.W.P. No.7812 of 2002(O&M) -4- In view of the above, the alternative prayer made by the petitioner is allowed and the order dated 4.1.2002 (Annexure P7) denying pension to the petitioner is set aside, and the petitioner is held entitled to pension under the Pension Regulations. The respondents are directed to take appropriate steps for payment of pension to the petitioner within three months from today. April 28, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE