Point of Law: 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.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been preferred against the communication dated 11.02.2011 (Annex.9) whereby the option form preferred by the petitioner to join the pension scheme has been rejected on the premise that he is not eligible to exercise another pension option.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner who was appointed as a regular Class IV employee with the Punjab National Bank on 31.12.1977, after completion of more than 30 years of service, on 27.11.2007, applied for resignation from the service w.e.f. 29.02.2008. Before the said application could be accepted or responded upon, vide the subsequent application dated 11.12.2007, he made a clarification that his earlier application dated 27.11.2007 be treated to be an application for voluntary retirement and not for resignation. The application dated 11.12.2007 was taken note of by the concerned Bank Manager and on the same date, the said fact was communicated to the Regional Manager. The application preferred by the petitioner was accepted by the competent authority and he therefore, stood retired w.e.f. 29.02.2008.

3. In the year 2010, a bipartite settlement was signed between the Indian Banks’ Association and different Bank Workmen Unions regarding various terms and conditions of the Bank employees. The said settlement also incorporated the Clause for award of pension to the Bank employees. In pursuance to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 27.04.2010, circular No.8/2010 dated 16.08.2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Circular’) was issued by the respondent Bank whereby an option was given to the employees of the Bank to opt for the pension scheme. A period of 60 days was granted to the eligible employees to exercise the said option and to become a Member of the pension fund.

4. On 03.09.2010, the petitioner exercised the said option and gave in writing his consent to become a Member of the pension fund. In addition, the petitioner also deposited an amount of Rs.2,97,482/-qua his share and contribution to the Provident Fund. The application dated 03.09.2010 was rejected by the respondent Bank and vide communication dated 11.02.2011, he was informed that as he had taken voluntary retirement (other than VRS), he was not eligible for opting for pension in terms of the circular dated 16.08.2010. The amount as deposited by the petitioner was also credited back to his account. Aggrieved against the said communication, the present writ petition has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was very much entitled to exercise another pension option in terms of the settlement dated 27.04.2010 and the subsequent circular dated 16.08.2010. Counsel submitted that the Circular did not provide for any distinction between the employees who opted for simplicitor voluntary retirement or those who opted for voluntary retirement under any special scheme. It is only the respondent Bank who derived out such distinction contrary to the Circular. Counsel submitted that the Circular specifically provided that the employees/officers who were in service of the Bank prior to 29.09.1995 and retired after that date but prior to the date of settlement/joint note dated 27.04.2010, would be entitled to join the existing pension scheme. Admittedly, the petitioner entered into the services of the Bank prior to 29.09.1995 and retired on 29.02.2008 i.e. prior to the date of settlement i.e. 27.04.2010. Counsel further submitted that the bipartite settlement provides for grant of another pension option to all the ‘retired’ employees of the Bank. The term ‘retired’ has been used in the settlement in a general and broader sense and has not been limited to the employees who stood retired because of resignation/voluntary retirement/death. The settlement intended to cover all the retired employees of the Bank without distinguishing the nature of retirement and therefore, the distinction as made by the respondent Bank being totally contrary to the Settle