IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13458 of 2008 SHASHIKALA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE MAUZI RAM RESIDENT OF SOUTH MANDIR KATHPUR, NEAR NAG PANCH MANDIR, P.S. BUDHA COLONY, DISTRICT – PATNA Versus 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA THROUGH DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER TERMINAL BENEFITS, CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI. 2. DY. GENERAL MANAGER, TERMINAL BENEFITS, CENTRAL OFFICE MUMBAI. 3. ZONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE PATNA. 4. REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, PATNA. 5. CHIEF MANAGER, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, PATNA. 6. BRANCH MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, RAJBANSHI NAGAR BRANCH, PATNA. -------------- 9 29.09.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent Bank. The prayer of the petitioner is for directing the bank for payment of the pension or alternatively the contributory provident fund on his resignation from the service of the bank while working on the post of Clerk. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that due to medical ground petitioner was unable to perform his duty and as such submitted his resignation from the service of the bank as per his letter dated 8th of October 2007, as contained in Annexure-1. The request for resignation was accepted by the Bank and communicated to the petitioner as per letter dated 29th November 2007, as contained in Annexure-3. The petitioner was paid the - 2 - gratuity and provident fund due to him. After acceptance of resignation, the petitioner requested the bank for considering his case for payment of pension treating his letter of resignation as a request for voluntary retirement as per Regulation 29 of the “Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations,1995” (hereinafter referred to as the “Pension Rules”). The said request of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-4 was not accepted. The petitioner was accordingly communicated as per letter dated 11th of January 2008 vide Annexure 5. The petitioner represented against the same and on being not allowed, petitioner accordingly has approached this court through this writ application for directing the Bank to allow pension to him or alternatively pay contributory provident fund. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that under Regulation 22 of the Pension Regulations upon resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of any employee from the service of the bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. The aforesaid Regulation 22(1) is quoted below. Forfeiture of service- (1) Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of any employee from the service of the bank shall entail - 3 - forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. Mr. Sinha in support of his submission has also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of UCO Bank and others versus Sanwar Mal and analogous cases as reported in 2004 AIR SCW 2294. The proposition that on resignation the employee is not entitled to pension is not in dispute between the parties. The only controversy is according to the petitioner the application filed by the petitioner for resignation should be taken as an application for voluntary retirement so as to make him entitle to receive pensionary benefits Learned counsel for the Bank further submits that under the Pension Regulations the procedure prescribed for resignation and voluntary retirement are two different procedures and refers to extract of paragraph 9 of the above decision of the Apex Court is quoted hereinunder for ready reference : We find merit in these appeals. The words “resignation” and “retirement” carry different meanings in common parlance. An employee can resign at any point of time, even on the second day of his appointment but in the case of retirement he retires only after attaining the age of - 4 - superannuation or in the case of voluntary retirement on completion of qualifying service. The effect of resignation and retirement to the extent that there is severance of employment but in service jurisprudence both the expressions are understood differently. Mr. Sinha further submits that the alternative prayer of the petitioner that in case the pension is not available the writ petitioner was entitled to receive the contribution of the Bank to the provident fund is equally not permissible under the aforesaid Regulation since the petitioner had opted under the Pension Scheme. The petitioner was however paid his contribution in the provident fund account with interest. Considering the submissions of the parties and the aforesaid Pension Regulations as noticed above this Court is of the view that there is no controversy between the parties that on resignation no pension is payable however the controversy is that his application submitted for resignation ought to have been taken into consideration by the bank as an application for voluntary retirement, cannot be accepted under a Pension Regulation of the Bank. The same is accordingly rejected. Similarly the claim of the petitioner that he ought to have - 5 - been paid contribution of the Bank to the provident fund is also not acceptable in view of the fact that the petitioner opted for pension scheme and as such the question for payment of contribution of the Bank to the provident fund with respect to the employee who opted for pension is not available as there could be no contribution of employer in provident fund. In view of the discussions and the reasons in the foregoing paragraphs the writ application has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Amrendra/ Jagdish (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J)