IMPORTANT POINT
Employees retiring on medical grounds are entitled to pension options under applicable circulars, provided they have completed the requisite service and did not voluntarily resign.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Aakash Modi waives service of admission on behalf of the respondent No. 1-employee.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present appeal is taken up for final disposal today.

3. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, emanates from the CAV Judgment dated 22.12.2023, wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has held that the petitioner is entitled to exercise pension option under the Circular No. 5690 dated 27.08.2010.

4. The facts, as recorded by the learned Single Judge in the CAV Judgment dated 22.12.2023, are not in dispute.

5. Pursuant to the advertisement and after undergoing the prescribed recruitment process, the original petitioner was selected and appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier by the appellant-Bank. The respondent joined his duty with the Bank on 14.05.1974. He rendered his services till March 2005, when he was relieved from his services on his rendering voluntary retirement on medical ground. At the time of retirement, the respondent was working on the post of Officer Scale-I (Assistant Manager) with the appellant-Bank. The respondent applied for voluntary retirement vide application dated 19.10.2004 on medical ground as he suffered from two heart attacks – first in the year 2003 and thereafter, in the year 2004.

6. In his application for voluntary retirement, the respondent has mentioned that he opts for the pension scheme, if the same is considered in the next bi-parte Settlement. The appellant- Bank has approved the said request by passing the order dated 17.03.2005 and the respondent was relieved from the services and he was also paid his dues of Rs.4,00,000/-.

7. Thereafter, bi-parte Settlement was worked out between the Bank Management and the Union and a Circular dated 27.08.2010 was issued inviting second option of pension from the existing employees, who had not opted for pension and also from the employees, who had been superannuated under the regular or special scheme of the bank on or after 29.09.1995. Under new scheme dated 27.08.2010, the respondent by an application dated 22.09.2010 has exercised option of pension. Such application was forwarded to the competent authority for its consideration. The respondent has also made repeated reminders for the same. Finally, he was conveyed that he is not covered by the scheme dated 27.08.2010 for grant of pension. The rejection led to filing of the captioned writ petition, which has been allowed in favour of the respondent, hence this appeal is preferred by the appellant-Bank.

8. Learned advocate Mr. Varun Patel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has misdirected himself in issuing the directions in favour of the respondent- original petitioner for exercising his pension option under the Circular No. 5690 dated 27.08.2010, since the respondent has retired prematurely on the medical ground. By referring to the Circular No. 5690 dated 27.08.2010, more particularly, Clause Nos.5 and 7, he has submitted that the employees, who have retired on medical ground and availed the benefits just like the respondent, and after having received an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- are not entitled for pension. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union Bank of India vs. Venkatesh Gopal Mahishi and another, (2006) 12 SCC 20. Thus, it is urged that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside.

9. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Aakash Modi appearing for respondent- employee has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference as the same is precisely passed after considering the judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in case of Sapna Roy vs. Union of India and others passed in FMA No. 3809 of 2016, which is upheld by the