REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1193 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 12, 2010 Balbir Singh .....Appellant VERSUS State Bank of Patiala and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Thapar, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Notice was issued only on an application seeking condonation of delay. Counsel for the respondents hands over reply to the said application, which is taken on record. Basically, the averments made in the application have been denied for want of knowledge. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which are supported by an affidavit, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant-plaintiff, who was working as a Clerk-cum- Cashier opted for voluntary retirement as per the V.R.S Scheme of REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1193 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 2 }: the Bank and was relieved from the duty with effect from 31.3.2001. While seeking voluntary retirement, the appellant had filled necessary application and other forms. He had also filled the form opting for pension. His pension, however, was not released. He accordingly filed the suit, challenging this action of not releasing pension to be illegal and wrong. The suit was contested by the Bank and decided against the appellant. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed. While declining the prayer of the appellant, it is held that on voluntary retirement, the appellant was entitled to grant of ex- gratia amount under Regulation 6 and other benefits under Regulation 7. It is further observed that pension was admissible as per the Rules applicable on the relevant date on the basis of actual years of service rendered and the scheme did not provide for grant of pension to the employee independently. It is also observed that as per the Regulation, the appellant was to become entitle to pension only after completion of 20 years of qualifying service. Noticing the pleading, it is observed that the appellant had only 16 years service to his credit and so his claim for pension was declined on the ground that he did not fulfill the condition of 20 years qualifying service, entitling him to pension on voluntary retirement. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed before me a judgment passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.312 of 2008 (State Bank of Patiala Vs. Pritam Singh Bedi and others), decided on 9.1.2009, where Single Bench judgment of this Court has been upheld on an identical question of law. In Dharam Pal Singh Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, 2008(1) PLR 745, it was held REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1193 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 3 }: that pension was payable under Regulation 28 and Regulation 29 did not apply. Accordingly, the matter was taken in L.P.A, where the Court considered the law laid down in Dharam Pal's case (supra) to see if it was liable to be interfered with or not. After making detailed reference to various provisions, it is held as under:- “A perusal of the Regulation 28 shows that on attaining the age of superannuation specified in Regulations or settlements pension is payable. The age of superannuation has been laid down in Service Regulations which is said to be 60 years now and earlier it was 58 years. But under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which according to the writ petitioners will be at par with Settlement, the requirement is 15 years of service or 40 years of age, which admittedly the writ petitioners had. Under Regulation 32 the pension is payable on premature retirement on account of orders of the bank if the employee was otherwise entitled to pension/superannuation on that day. Read with Regulations 14 and 28, the said age is 10 years and if read with the Scheme, it is 15 years of age or 40 years of service and in either case the employees were covered by the pension scheme. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Regulation 29 relating to voluntary retirement was not applicable. Thus, contention on behalf of the Bank that Regulation 29 applied and therefore, pension was payable only after 20 years service cannot be accepted.” It is not disputed before me that the issue in the present REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1193 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 4 }: Regular Second Appeal would be squarely covered by the decision in this case. In this view of the law as laid down by this Court, the judgments under appeal passed by the Trial Court as well as lower Appellate Court can not be sustained. The appeal is accordingly allowed and both the judgments under appeal are set-aside. The suit filed by the appellant shall stand decreed. It is accordingly held that the appellant would be entitled to pension as per the Scheme prepared by the Bank on his voluntary retirement. Let the decree sheet in this regard be prepared by the Registry of this Court. January 12,2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE