The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of pension regulations, specifically Regulation 29 for voluntary retirement and Regulation 30 for invalid pension, in light of the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order or the respondent dated 15.03.2001 bearing Ref. No. DP:PENSION:182:01 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to sanction pension in terms of Union Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 with effect from the date of coming into force of the Pension Regulation with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner was appointed on 01.07.1958 in the Union Bank of India as a Clerk. Thereafter, he was promoted as Officer. On 31.10.1989, the petitioner was relieved from service on voluntary retirement on medical grounds. On his date of retirement, there was no pension scheme. However, in the year 1993, the pension scheme was introduced. The scheme itself provided for grant of pension even to those persons who retired from services from 01.01.1986 to 31.10.1993. The petitioner approached the Bank for grant of pension, but the Bank denied the petitioner's request on the ground that the scheme was applicable only to persons who retired on superannuation and not to persons who retired voluntarily.

3. Similar orders have been passed by many Banks and this culminated in the unreported Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India Vs. Rajagoplan and others in Civil Appeal No.6959 of 1999, where the Supreme Court has held:-

"All that has happened is in such of the banks where a scheme for voluntary retirement was available, certain employees retired under that scheme. Now a comprehensive pension scheme has been framed which came into force w.e.f.01.11.1993 and applicable uniformly to all Bank employees which provides for voluntary retirement as well. The applicability of these Rules to those employees who have voluntarily retired w.e.f. 01.01.1986 to 31.10.1993 is raised in these matters. It is not possible for Shri V.R.Reddy, learned senior counsel who appears for the appellants to point out that there is any significant financial or other burden or difference so far as those who had voluntarily retired and those who had ordinarily retired. In that event where there is no distinction, the authorities having sought to make a distinction and not applied the regulations framed subsequent to their retirement, the High Court has given appropriate directions. We also notice that the number of employees who have retired in this manner is also very small. However, we think no interference is called for in these appeals. The appeals are therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs."

4. Following the above decision, the bank forwarded an application seeking the petitioner to exercise his option as to whether he wants to continue in the Provident Fund scheme or switch over to the Pension Scheme. On 01.08.2000, the petitioner submitted the application to the authorities seeking permission. But by order dated 15.03.2001, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. That order that is now challenged.

The impugned order read as follows:

"However, as already conveyed to you vide our letter No. DP:PENSION:1743:2000 dated 07.07.2000, "Pensionary benefits arising out of the judgment are to be granted only to those officer employees who had voluntarily retired during the period 01.01.1986 to 31.10.1993 in terms of specific scheme formulated by the Bank's Board pursuant to the proviso to Regulation 19 of the Officers' Service Regulations. These officers are to be sanctioned the benefits in terms of Regulation 29 of Bank (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995." The request for voluntary retirement on medical grounds in terms of Staff Circular No.3292 dated 13.06.1988 which pertains to voluntary retirement on medical grounds and appointment of dependant on compassionate grounds does not fall within the purview of Regulation 29 of Union Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995."