Resigned employees are not eligible for pensionary benefits under the Indian Overseas Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in W.P.No.32977 of 2014: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records from the respondent bank pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent bearing No.PAD/Pension/241/2014-2015 dated 02.07.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent bank to extend the petitioner option to join Indian Overseas Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, as laid down in Annexure to Bank Circular No.Misc.No. EST/62/ 2010-11 dated 30.08.2010 with costs.

W.P.No.32978 of 2014: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records from the respondent bank pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent bearing No.PAD/Pension/237/2014-2015 dated 02.07.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent bank to extend the petitioner option to join Indian Overseas Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, as laid down in Annexure to Bank Circular No.Misc.No. EST/62/ 2010-11 dated 30.08.2010 with costs.)

1. The orders impugned, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners for grant of pension and pensionary benefits are under challenge in the present writ petitions.

2. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.32977 of 2014 was working as Senior Manager. After completion of 26 years of service on 27.07.2006, on certain personal circumstances, the petitioner resigned his job.

2.1. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.32978 of 2014 was working as Assistant Manager. After completion of 22 years of service on 22.01.1996, on certain personal circumstances, the petitioner resigned his job.

3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners had not opted for Pension Regulations. Based on their resignation letters, they were relieved from service.

4. Subsequently, the petitioners submitted application for grant of pensionary benefits, which was rejected on the ground that the resigned employees are not entitled for pension and pensionary benefits under the pension scheme.

5. In respect of the Nationalized Banks pension scheme issues, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.R.Prabhakar and others vs. Canara Bank and others, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 671, held that the resigned employees are not eligible for pensionary benefits. Thus, the issues are no more res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India made the following observations in paragraph Nos.17 to 20, which reads as under:

“17. We may indicate that in Sanwar Mal [(2004) 4 SCC 412 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 699] , the employee, who was working on Class III post, resigned from the service of UCO Bank on 25-2-1988 after giving one month's notice and also accepted his provident fund without protest. On coming into force of the 1995 Regulations, Sanwar Mal opted for the pension scheme. Since Sanwar Mal had resigned in the year 1988, UCO Bank declined its option for admitting him as a member of the fund. This Court, as already indicated, after referring to the various provisions of the 1995 Regulations and after examining the meaning of the expressions “resignation” and “retirement”, held that since Regulation 22 provided for disqualification of employees who had resigned, such employees could not claim membership of the fund.

18. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants have placed heavy reliance on Sheelkumar Jain [(2011) 12 SCC 197] and submitted that in the light of that judgment, the decision rendered in Sanwar Mal [(2004) 4 SCC 412 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 699] requires reconsideration. We find it difficult to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

19. We may point out that in Sheelkumar Jain [(2011) 12 SCC 197] this Court was dealing with an insurance scheme and not the pension scheme, which is applicable in the banking sector. The provisions of both the scheme and the Regulations are not in pari materia. In Sheelkumar Jain case [(2011) 12 SCC 197] , whi