THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2806 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of State Bank of India as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 14.09.1983 and his services were confirmed in that post on 14.03.1984. In the year 2000, the Bank introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme (V.R.S.) and it was kept open between 15.01.2001 and 31.01.2001. The petitioner fitted into the conditions of V.R.S. and accordingly, submitted an application on 17.01.2001. The application was accepted and he was relieved from duties with effect from 31.03.2001, duly extending all the benefits under the V.R.S. The Indian Banks’ Association addressed a letter, dated 11.12.2000, to all the Public Sector Banks. It was mentioned that a proposal was mooted with the Government of India to ensure payment of pension to such of the employees, who retire under V.R.S. and have put in 15 years of service. A suggestion was made to amend the pension rules concerned accordingly. The petitioner submits that if the benefit of the circular is extended to him, he would be entitled to be paid pro rata pension. He seeks directions in that regard. A counter-affidavit is filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is stated that the State Bank of India has its own Pension Regulations and minimum length of service which an employee must have for being paid pension is 20 years. It is stated that the letter issued by the Indian Banks’ Association was not acted upon by the State Bank of India, since it has its own Pension Regulations. Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The application submitted by the petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted and all the benefits provided for under the V.R.S. were extended to him. The Indian Banks’ Association came forward with a proposal for extending the benefit of the pro rata pension to the employees, who retire on V.R.S. also. This proposal, however, came into existence after the V.R.S. was announced in State Bank of India. It does not have any retrospective effect. Further, it was only a proposal or suggestion and by itself, it did not bring about any legal obligations. The ultimate decision was left to be taken by the respective Banks. On its part, State Bank of India did not take any further steps on the ground that it has an independent set of Pension Regulations. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 18.01.2011. kdl