( 1 ) THE petitioner, a former employee of the UCO Bank, the respondent herein [hereinafter referred to as, "the Bank"], claims a right to receive pension under the UCO Bank [employees] Pension Regulations, 1995 [hereinafter referred to as, "the Pension Regulations"]. It is the claim of the petitioner that on 16th March, 1994, he retired from service of the Bank after putting in thirty four years of service. Under the Pension Regulations the entire service of the petitioner was pensionable service. Nevertheless, the Bank has refused to pay pension to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

( 2 ) DR. Thakar has relied upon the application for voluntary retirement made by the petitioner on 16th March, 1994. He has submitted that at the relevant time, the Pension Regulations of 1993 were in force. Relying upon the said Pension Regulations, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on 16th March, 1994 with immediate effect. Dr. Thakar has submitted that on reaching the age of superannuation, the petitioner would have retired from service in the month of November, 1995. However, as the petitioner had recently lost his wife and he had arranged marriage of his daughter, the petitioner took voluntary retirement on 16th March, 1994. The petitioner also filled in option form opting for the Pension Scheme. The said option was accepted by the Bank. Under communication dated 1st December, 1994, the Bank had informed the petitioner that the option exercised by him was irrevocable. Hence, the petitioner was entitled to receive pension on the principle of legitimate expectation and also of promissory estoppel. He has submitted that the Bank had given wide publicity to its Pension Regulations of 1993. Relying on the provisions contained in the Pension Regulations of 1993, the petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement. Had the petitioner been not assured of the pension, he would not have opted for voluntary retirement from service and would have continued until he reached the age of superannuation. He has further submitted that the Bank is a nationalized bank, an instrumentality of the State. The Bank is expected to be an ideal employer and be fair in its dealings with its employees. The petitioner having taken voluntary retirement, induced by the Pension Regulations of 1993, should not now be refused the benefit of pension. He has submitted that the recalcitrant attitude of the Bank has resulted into a great financial loss to the petitioner in december of his life. He has submitted that in refusing pension to the petitioner, the Bank has relied upon the contents of the application for voluntary retirement made by the petitioner, rather than the intention of the petitioner. He has submitted that at the relevant time the petitioner was experiencing hard times. If under anxiety or duress suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner had used the words resignation instead of retirement in his application, the petitioner cannot be said to have resigned from service. He has submitted that in his application dated 16th March, 1994 the petitioner had categorically stated that, "i would also like to submit that the benefits of pension and other voluntary retirement benefits may also be extended to me as per the Rule. " Thus, the intention of the petitioner to take voluntary retirement was explicit in the said application. The petitioner, therefore, should be treated to have taken voluntary retirement and be paid the retirement benefits accordingly. In support of his arguments, Dr. Thakar has relied upon the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in the matters of Union Bank of India and Ors. vs. Lt. Col. P. S Bhargava [1997 (2) SCC 28]; of Bank of India vs. Indu Rajagopalan and Ors. [2001 (9) SCC 318]; of V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay and Anr. [air 1999 SC 81]; of R. Subramaniam vs. Chief Personnel Officer, Central Railways, Ministry of Railways [ (1996) 10 SCC 72]; and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document