R.K. DESHPANDE, J.

1. Rule. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the communication dated 11-8-2016 issued by the respondent No.1 State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur informing the petitioner that Regulation 18 of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Pension Regulations”) does not apply to the petitioner as it is only for the purpose of pension calculation for eligible employees to get pension and not for pension eligibility. According to the respondent-Bank, the petitioner did not complete 15 years of service as stipulated in Clause 3 of Eligibility for Pension under the Scheme, viz. SBBJ Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SBBJVRS), and, therefore, the request of the petitioner for second option for pension cannot be considered.

Facts of the Case :

3. The undisputed factual position is that the petitioner joined the service of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur on 29-4-1986 upon the death of her husband in the year 1985. The petitioner was confirmed in service on 1-11-1986. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the respondent-Bank was introduced with effect from 31-1-2001, and Clause 3 regarding eligibility under the Scheme stated that it will be open to all permanent employees of the Bank who have put in 15 years of service or have completed 40 years of age as on 31-1-2001.

4. The petitioner having completed 40 years of age, submitted her application on 31-3-2001 for voluntary retirement under the said Scheme and had opted for the pension benefit, but she was refunded only the employees' contribution towards Provident Fund upon her retirement. By the communication dated 15-6-2001, the petitioner was informed in response to a query as to whether the employees who have rendered 15 years of service will be entitled to pension under the SBBJVRS, that in terms of the Bank's Circular No.PER/111/00.01 dated 23-2-2001 Annexure II Para 3, the employees who have not completed 20 years of pensionable service are not eligible for pension.

5. On 27-4-2010, there was a settlement reached between the Indian Banks' Association and the All India Bank Employees' Association under Sections 2(p) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The settlement was to extend the Pension Scheme to those employees who were in service of the Bank prior to 26-3-1995 and retired after that date and prior to the date of the settlement. Accordingly, the respondent-Bank issued the Circular dated 30-11-2015 inviting applications from its retirement employees to seek the benefit of pension as per the said settlement.

6. The petitioner applied on 5-5-2016 for exercising her option for pension as soon as she came to know about the settlement. It was initially rejected on 18-5-2016 stating that it was beyond the time limit prescribed in the Circular. The petitioner intimated that she did not receive any such Circular and, therefore, could not apply in time. The petitioner was informed on 13-7-2016 that she is ineligible for pension, as she rendered the service of 14 years, 11 months and 3 days, which was short of 15 years. It was confirmed again on 11-8-2016, which is the communication under challenge in this petition.

7. The petitioner was eligible to seek voluntary retirement under the Scheme of 2001, as she was more than 40 years of age as on 31-3-2001. However, she did not complete actual service of 15 years, but rendered 14 years, 11 months and 3 days' continuous service as on 31-3-2001. The question is whether the Bank was justified in denying the claim of the petitioner for pension on voluntary retirement from service? Before proceeding to deal with the controversy, the relevant provisions and the changes therein need to be seen.

Relevant provisions :

8. The qualifying service for pension was governed by Regulation 14 in Chapter IV of the Pension Regulations, which runs as under :

“14. Qualifying service—Subject to the other