Entitlement to pension and leave encashment upon voluntary retirement is determined by the Pension Rules and the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. By the present writ petition the petitioner, who was serving in a Grade-IV post of Messenger in the State Bank of India, Kolasib Branch, has challenged the order dated 21.5.2004 passed by the respondent No. 2, namely, Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India, Aizawl refusing to pay the pensional benefit under the provision of the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred as 'Pension Rules') and also the benefit of encashment of balance of Privilege Leave, upon opting for voluntary retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme of the State Bank of India.

2. Pacts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially engaged on muster roll basis and thereafter appointed as Messenger in Aizawl branch on 10.10.1980 and confirmed with effect from 10.4.1981. After confirmation he was transferred to Kolasib branch. While the petitioner was serving as Messenger a Voluntary Retirement Scheme was floated by the Management of the bank. The petitioner who fulfills the requisite conditions under the said scheme opted for voluntary retirement and accordingly the voluntary retirement was given to the petitioner under the scheme with effect from 31.3.2001 vide order dated 23.3.2001. The petitioner after availing the said benefit under the scheme has filed an application before the authority for payment of the pension under the pension rules and also the benefit of leave encashment of privilege leave for sixty one days. The said request was turned down by the authority vide order dated 7.8.2001, where after the petitioner filed two representations reiterating his request but as no further order was issued he approach this Court by filing WPC No. 19/2004, which was disposed of vide order dated 5.4.2004 by directing the State Bank authority to consider the representation of the petitioner and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law within two months from the date of furnishing the certificate copy of the order. The petitioner vide communication dated 15.4.2004 submitted certified copy of the order before the authority and the management of the bank after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner, vide order dated 21.5.2004 rejected the prayer by refusing to grant the pension under the pension rules and also the benefit of encashment of balance of Privilege Leave. Hence the present writ petition.

3. Mr. George Raju, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though it is not in dispute that from the date of confirmation of service he has not completed twenty years of qualifying service so as entitle him to get pension under the Pension Rules, keeping in view the post hold by the petitioner, i.e., Grade-IV post, the authority is required to consider the case of the petitioner for relaxation of the provisions of the Pension Rules by condoning the shortage of eleven days, so that he can get the pension under the pension rules. The further submission of the Mr. Raju, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in any case his contribution towards pension fund under the Pension Rules, cannot withheld by the Management of the bank even though the petitioner is not entitle to pension under the pension rules. The further submission of Mr. Raju, learned Counsel is that though the authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner for encashment of balance of Privilege Leave on the ground that the same can be given only if an employee is retired from service after attaining age of superanuation, the authority has not been able to show anything before the court or before the committee, who has scrutinised the claim of the petitioner, to that effect. According to the learned Counsel, Clause 15 of Memorandum of Settlement dated 31.10.1979 having provided that an employee shall be entitle leave at the time of retirement, and the petitioner having retired from service after obtaining voluntary retirement, the authority cannot deprive the peti