IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13936 of 2003 AMITABH BANERJEE, son of Late-Kali Das Banerjee, resident of Station Road(Goriatoli), P.S.-Kotwali, Town & District-Patna. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The Punjab National Bank, through its Chairman & Managing Director, Head Office, 7 Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. 2. The General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Head Office, Personnel Division, 7 Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. 3. The Deputy General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Head Office, Personnel Division, 7 Bhikhaiji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. 4. The Chief, Punjab National Bank, Pension and Fund Department, Rajendra Bhawan 2nd Floor, Rajendra Place, New Delhi. 5. The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Chanakya Place, R-Block, Patna-800001. ……….Respondents. ----------- 05. 30.07.2009 Petitioner was an employee of Punjab National Bank and posted in Bihar. He was appointed on 01.02.1978. It appears that in 1999, bank agreed to revise pay scale of all its employees and an agreement in this regard was executed, that agreement is referred to and is a part of Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the Bank. Annexure-A is the Personnel Division Circular No. 1698 dated 23rd of December, 1999 by which the revised pay scales are indicated. In the year 2000, Bank came up with a Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, for the purposes of calculation of pension, the pension regulations were referred to and in particular Regulation 29(v) with which we are concerned. - 2 - The petitioner was aggrieved by two actions/inactions of the matter. Firstly it related to the period of service that was to be added for calculating pension. Petitioner’s contention was that in terms of Regulation 29(v) five years have to be added to his service which the Bank did not do. Secondly he submits that the last pay that petitioner drew prior to voluntary retirement was Rs. 13,220/- which was the average last pay drawn in the last ten months. His gratuity and other retiral dues were fixed on the said pay scale but when it came to pension that was calculated on basis of Rs. 11,591/-. This was impermissible. Counter affidavit has been filed. With consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. So far as the first issue of Regulation 29(v) is concerned, both the parties agreed that the question has now been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Bank of India and another versus K. Mohandas and others since reported in 2009(5) SCC 313. The Apex Court held that employees who have completed twenty years of service at the time of seeking voluntary retirement would be entitled to five years of additional service added for the purposes of calculating pension subject, however to the condition that on such addition the service period does not exceed the normal service period of that employee. In that view of the - 3 - matter, the first issue is to be decided in favour of the petitioner. The Bank would have to make necessary corrections in this regard giving effect of the judgment of the Apex Court by adding five years of service to the petitioner’s service already taken for the purposes of calculation of pension. Coming to the second question, it is clear that at the time then petitioner became entitled to pension by virtue of having opted for VRS his pay scale had been revised (Annexure-K to the counter affidavit). In the memorandum showing revision of pay scale itself, it is clearly stipulated that pay for the purposes of pension would be basic pre-revision pay with Dearness the rates specified therein. Bank in their counter affidavit categorical stated that it is that calculation which has brought the pay down to Rs. 11,591/- but is limited only for calculating pay for the purposes of pension fixation. It does not affect gratuity and others which have been calculated on average ten months last pay drawn. In my view, if this is the package to which petitioner was entitled, petitioner having taken benefit of pay revision under this package can not ignore the other part of the same package where pay for the purposes of pension has been fixed. Having accepted revised pay - 4 - under the same package, petitioner becomes bound by the definition of pay for the purposes of pension as given therein. If that be so, then pension has been rightly worked out by the Respondent Bank on basis of basic pre- revision pay as increased by the Dearness. There is thus apparently no illegality in such fixation. Thus the success being divided as between the petitioner and the Bank, it is only expected that the Bank would now expeditiously give due credit to the petitioner for five years service as contemplated under Section 29(v) and work out the amount that is required to be paid to the petitioner and pay the same to the petitioner at the earliest. The writ petition stands disposed of. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)