C.W.P. No.8695 of 2007(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.8695 of 2007(O&M) DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 28, 2009 Jai Kishan Singh .....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.Pankaj Katia, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. .. 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 14.5.2002 (Annexure P6) vide which a new condition of eligibility period of 15 years has been introduced for availing pension under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000. A prayer has also been made for issuing direction to the respondents to sanction and release the pro-rata pension to the petitioner to which he became entitled under Regulation 28/29 of the Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as `the Pension Regulations') on his voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000, on 20.12.2000. This writ petition was admitted on May 30, 2007 and was ordered to be listed along with CWP No.7812 of 2002. C.W.P. No.8695 of 2007(O&M) -2- Now the petitioner has filed C.M. No.18261 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 and others, 2008(1) SCT 739, 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 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 C.W.P. No.8695 of 2007(O&M) -3- 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, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the order of the even date passed by this Court in CWP No.7812 of 2002, where a similarly situated employee of the respondent- bank, who was denied pension, has been allowed the benefit of pension under the Pension Regulations, the same order be passed in case of the present petitioner also. The counsel for the respondent-bank could not controvert the above-said factual and legal position. In my opinion, the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. Concededly, in SLP filed against the aforesaid judgment, no stay has been granted. In view of the above, the petition is allowed in terms of the order of the even date passed in CWP No.7812 of 2002. 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