Court ruled that pending applications for pension under earlier circular necessitated acknowledgment and benefits according to a later circular extending eligibility, ensuring justice for voluntary retirees.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)--The petitioner, a 70 years old woman, who was working as a Grade II officer in the respondent no.1/bank, and had taken voluntary retirement from the same on 30.10.1998, has approached this Court being aggrieved by the Bank's refusal to extend pensionary benefits to her.

2. The petitioner joined the respondent/bank as a probationary officer in 1977 and left the services on 30.10.1998 after taking voluntary retirement, which was duly accepted on 26.10.1998. While she was in service, the respondent, on 29.09.1995, issued a circular which gave an option to the employees to opt for pension scheme as promulgated by the bank. This option was accepted by about 48% of bank's employees but the petitioner, like many others, did not opt for pension and consequently, upon her voluntary retirement, she was not entitled to any pension under this scheme.

3. On 20.08.2010, many years after the petitioner had retired, based on an industry settlement arrived at between the employees' unions and the Indian Banks Association, the respondents issued another circular giving another opportunity to the employees and their families, who were in service at any time before 29.09.1995, to opt for pension. This offer was also open to employees who had retired under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000.

4. The petitioner, who had taken voluntary retirement in 1998, by considering herself as eligible under the circular dated 20.08.2010, submitted a representation to the respondents on 13.10.2010, exercising her option for being governed by the pension scheme. Since she received no response thereto, a further representation was submitted by her on 02.09.2011, which also remained unresponded to.

5. On 01.01.2013, the respondents came up with yet another circular giving an option to employees, who were in service prior to 29.09.1995, and had sought voluntary retirement from service before 27.04.2010, to opt for pension. It is the petitioner's case that since her representation dated 13.10.2010 was still pending consideration, she was not informed of this circular and therefore, she did not apply under the said circular. The petitioner's representation, however, came to be rejected on 24.05.2014, whereby she was informed that since she had resigned from service, she was not eligible to opt for pension under the circular dated 20.08.2010. Upon receipt of this reply, the petitioner once again approached the respondents with a grievance that she never resigned from service but had taken voluntary retirement, and it is then that she was, for the first time, informed that only vide circular dated 01.01.2013, options for pension were sought from voluntary retired officers and the circular dated 20.08.2010, under which she had applied, was not applicable to her. The petitioner made further representations including raising a grievance with the PMO but received no response thereto. It is in these circumstances that the present petition came to be filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the petitioner was treated to be ineligible for applying for pension as per the circular dated 20.08.2010, the respondents ought to have considered her option to shift to the pension scheme as per the circular dated 01.01.2013, which as per its own stand, was specifically extended to employees like the petitioner, who had taken voluntary retirement before 27.04.2010. He contends that when the petitioner's application seeking release of pension submitted on 13.10.2010, was already pending consideration with the respondents, which came to be rejected only on 24.05.2014, it was incumbent upon them to either inform the petitioner in time that her application submitted on 13.