The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of a statutory settlement and the liberal interpretation of beneficiary legislation.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ of declaration, that the second respondent's order No. Lr.No.PPG/PEN/95/574 dt.21.3.2002 in fixing the qualifying service of 20 years for grant of pension, is contrary to Regulations 14 and 35 (6) (a) of Pension Regulations 1995, with consequential relief to direct the respondents to grant the pro-rata pension in terms of pension Regulation 1995 together with interest at 12% p.a. from April 2006 to the petitioner or in the alternative direct the State Bank of Hyderabad to grant pension benefits together with interest at 12% p.a. from April 2006, under the settlement dated 27.04.2010

2. The petitioner joined the services of State Bank of Hyderabad as Cashier-cum-Clerk on compassionate ground on 15.10.1982 at Parrys Corner Branch. The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement under State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees') Voluntary Retirement Scheme – 2001, circulated vide circular No.PER/2000-2001/87 dated 25.01.2001. The request of petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted, and he was allowed to go on Voluntary Retirement with effect from 31.03.2001.

3. The petitioner thereafter filed representation on 11.03.2002, for grant of prorata pension in terms of the Pension Regulation, 1995. The request of petitioner was rejected on 21.03.2002, on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of service to be eligible for pension.

4. The submission of petitioner is, that the respondents were under the erroneous assumption, that the minimum qualifying service required for pension is 20 years under the Pension Regulation, 1995, therefore, wrongly rejected the request for prorata pension.

5. In support of the plea, that the petitioner was entitled to prorata pension, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, wherein the qualifying service for being eligible for pension is 10 years as on the date of retirement, on which the employee retires. It is not in dispute that the petitioner sought voluntary retirement under VRS.

6. According to the State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, the employee is not eligible to seek voluntary retirement, before completing 20 years of service. Therefore, the petitioner was not eligible for voluntary retirement under Pension Regulations. The petitioner, therefore, cannot take benefit of Regulation 14 to claim, that she is entitled to prorata pension, as the petitioner sought voluntary retirement under State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees') Voluntary Retirement Scheme – 2001, which clearly stipulated, that though employee, who had put in 15 years of service, was eligible for voluntary retirement under the VRS scheme, but the persons so seeking voluntary retirement will not be entitled to pension, if he had not completed 20 years of service. The petitioner, having accepted the voluntary retirement under the Special Scheme,cannot question the order vide which the request of petitioner for grant of prorata pension was rejected. The scheme being special was to override general regulations.

7. The petitioner has also prayed for alternative relief i.e. for grant of pension under the statutory settlement dated 27.04.2010 enter into between the Indian Banks' Association on behalf of the Management listed in the Schedule and their Workmen, represented by All India Bank Employees' Association (AIBEA), National Confederation of Bank Employees (NCBE), Bank Employees' Federation of India (BEFI), Indian National Bank Employees' Federation (INBEF) and National Organisation of Bank Workers (NOBW). Under the statutory settlement dated 27.04.2010, an option was given to persons, to exercise their option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer, to become a member of the Pension Fund.

8. It is not disputed, that the petitioner opted for pension under the settlement dated 27.04.2010 on 21.06.2010, i.e. within 60 day