Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PANKAJ MITHAL, DINESH MEHTA, JJ.
Hagami Lal S/o Madhav Lal - Appellant
Versus
State Bank Of India – Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3028 of 2006
Decided on : 09-12-2022
Pension Regulations - Resignation - Regulations of 1995 - Summary of Acts and Sections: 22(1), 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 - The court upheld the disqualification of pensionary benefits in case of resignation as per Regulation 22(1) of the Regulations of 1995. The court also discussed the provisions of Regulations 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 to explain the overall scheme of pension and highlighted the distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement. The judgment emphasized that the petitioner knowingly resigned and cannot claim parity with employees taking voluntary retirement or those dismissed, removed, or terminated from service.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a bank employee, resigned to contest elections and later sought pensionary benefits. The court found that the petitioner knowingly resigned, was aware of the forfeiture of pension rights, and only raised the issue after two years of resignation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner's challenge to Regulation 22(1) as misconceived and upheld the disqualification of pensionary benefits in case of resignation. The court emphasized the distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement, and rejected the petitioner's attempt to claim benefits under Regulation 29. The court also directed the bank to refund the petitioner's provident fund contribution with interest.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's entitlement to pensionary benefits after resigning from service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner knowingly resigned and cannot claim parity with employees taking voluntary retirement or those dismissed, removed, or terminated from service. The judgment emphasized the distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement and upheld the disqualification of pensionary benefits in case of resignation as per Regulation 22(1) of the Regulations of 1995.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, except for the direction to the bank to refund the petitioner's provident fund contribution with interest.
JUDGMENT :
DINESH MEHTA J.
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
I. By an appropriate writ, order or direction clause 22(1) to the extent of disqualification on resignation of Pension Regulations 1995 issued by the respondents may kindly be declared illegal and be set aside as being ultra vires the Constitution of India.
II. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the petitioner be held to be eligible and entitled for grant of pension and commutation of pension from 5.12.2003.
III. If during pendency of the writ petition, the respondents issued any letter/order refusing to grant pension to the petitioner on any ground, then by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the same may also be quashed.
IV. Alternatively, by an appropriate writ, order or direction it may be declared that the petitioner who resigned from service of the Bank is entitled and eligible for compassionate allowance (pension) as per clause 31.
V. In the further alternative and without prejudice to above, by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to refund the credit balance to the provident fund account of the petitioner which was transferred to the pension fund with accrued interest.
VI. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.
VII. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners.”
2. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur under the sportsman category in the pay scale of Rs. 325-1040. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur later on merged with State Bank of India.
3. In the year 1995, in exercise of the powers available under sub-clause (i)(1) and clause ‘O’ of sub-section (2) of Section 63 of the State Bank of India Subsidiary Banks Act, 1959, the State Bank of India in consultation with the Board of Directors of erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and after due approval of the Reserve Bank of India promulgated State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations of 1995”), which came into force w.e.f. 29.09.1995.
4. According to the petitioner, even after merger of the erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur with the respondent – Bank (State Bank of India), the petitioner’s rights claimed in the instant petition would be governed by the Regulations of 1995.
5. When the Assembly Elections for the State of Rajasthan were notified to be held in the month of November, 2003, the petitioner desirous of contesting election submitted an application dated 08.09.2003 (Annx.7) and sought Bank's permission to contest the election. In furtherance of petitioner’s request, the bank permitted the petitioner to contest the election vide its communication dated 14.10.2003 (Annx.8), however, with a condition that on being elected, he will have to resign from the bank. It was clearly indicated in the letter dated 14.10.2003 that the application seeking permission (dated 08.09.2003) would itself be considered as resignation, if a formal resignation is not submitted.
6. After being elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly on 04.12.2003, by way of letter dated 09.02.2004 (Annx.9), the petitioner tendered his resignation. It may be noted that said resignation was unqualified and unconditional.
7. According to the petitioner, having tendered resignation, he had orally requested the respondent – bank to give him monthly pension but no heed was paid whereafter, the petitioner moved a representation dated 27.02.2006 and requested the bank to pay monthly pension. When the bank orally informed the petitioner that as per Regulation 22(1) of the Regulations of 1995, he having resigned is not entitled for the pension, the petitioner has preferred the present writ
The judgment established the distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement, upheld the disqualification of pensionary benefits in case of resignation, and emphasized that the petitioner kn....
Resignation and retirement have different legal implications, and the scope of a pension scheme may not extend to resigned employees.
(1) Resignation and Voluntary Retirement are different – Employees resigning from service and employees retiring from service voluntarily constitute two different classes – Treating two classes diffe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the distinction between voluntary retirement and resignation, as well as the forfeiture clause under the Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pen....
Point of Law : In service jurisprudence, the expressions “superannuation”, “voluntary retirement”, “compulsory retirement” and “resignation” convey different connotations. Voluntary retirement and re....
Rule 2(k) defines ‘date of retirement’ as means last date of month in which an employee attains age of superannuation or date on which he is retired.
Resignation entails forfeiture of past service, making the employee ineligible for pensionary benefits.
A government employee who resigns from service due to personal or domestic reasons without any pending disciplinary proceedings is entitled to proportionate pension under Rule 6.16(2), as the forfeit....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
