Point of Law: Employment and Service matter – Bank – Rejection of retirement benefits - Rejection of proposal of petitioner and not allowing him to deposit retiral benefits within stipulated time is not legally permissible as classification made by respondent Bank is an unreasonable classification beyond the confines of legitimacy.

JUDGMENT :

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintained by the petitioner against the respondents praying therein for the following substantive reliefs :

(i) “That rejection of the option of the petitioner vide letters dated 8.11.2010, Annexure P9, 7.1.2011, Annexure P10, 8.2.2013, Annexure P14 and 28.2.2013, Annexure P15 may kindly be set aside;

(ii) That if it is found that there is anything in the Joint Note dated 27.4.2010, Annexure P6 and clarification dated 9.11.2012, Annexure P11 excluding the category of prematurely retired officer on total incapacity for the purpose of exercising option for Pension Scheme, in that event such exclusion may also be quashed and set aside being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, with all consequential benefits;

(iii) That the respondent Bank may be directed to accept the option of the petitioner, Annexure P8 submitted pursuant to Joint Note dated 27.4.2010, Annexure P6 circulated vide circular dated 9.9.2010, Annexure P7 and another option submitted by him vide Annexure P13, pursuant to clarification dated 9.11.2012, Annexure P11 and consequently he may be held entitled to the pensionary benefits becoming due and payable to him as per Pension Regulations 1995, with all consequential benefits.

2. As per the petitioner, he joined as Accounts Clerk in respondent Bank on 27.2.1978 and he was promoted as Special Assistant on 25.3.1985 and thereafter promoted as an Officer Scale-I on 1.2.1990.

3. It has been submitted that in the year 1995, the Bank of Baroda (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 Annexure P1 were notified and as per Regulation 3(3) of these Regulations, the Regulations were applicable to the employees in service of the Bank before the notified date, who continued in service on or after the notified date and exercised an option in writing within 120 days from the date notified to become the member of the fund. The petitioner did not exercise any option under the aforesaid Regulations.

4. It has been averred that the petitioner met with an accident in 1996 and he was promoted as an Officer Scale-II in 1997. However, on account of serious injuries sustained by him, he was under treatment in CMC, Ludhiana and as such, he opted to forgo the said promotion.

5. It has been submitted that the respondent-Bank issued circular dated 14.10.2005 whereby Scheme for “Payment of Ex-gratia amount in lieu of appointment of dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds in exceptional cases” which was introduced and the aforesaid Scheme was modified vide circular dated 2.2.2006.

6. It has been submitted that the petitioner submitted representation dated 27.12.2006, Annexure P3, relying on Annexure P2, Scheme and applied for premature retirement on the ground of his total incapacitation. It has been submitted that the respondent-Bank further modified the Scheme circulated on 14.10.2005 and modified on 2.2.2006 vide circular dated 12.11.2007, Annexure P4.

7. It has been averred that vide letter dated 20.12.2007, Annexure P5, the petitioner was informed that the competent authority had favourably considered his retirement under the scheme for financial relief to employees seeking retirement on the grounds of total incapacitation and that the bank had sanctioned Rs. 8 lacs (Rupees eight lacs) AS FINANCIAL RELIEF under the above Scheme payable to him only after settlement of terminal benefits and recovery of all dues. He was relieved from Bank service with effect from 20.12.2007. Further, it has been averred that in terms of Agreement/ Joint Note dated 27.4.2010, the respondent Bank vide circular dated 9.9.2010, decided to give option to join the “Captioned Pension Scheme” to the categories of employees detailed therein. The petitioner submitted his option for joining the Pension Scheme in question vide his representation with stipulated time.

8. It has been submitted that vide letter dated 8.11.2010,