Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
V. Sriganesh - Appellant
Versus
Indian Overseas Bank, Represented by the Chairman & Managing Director, Chennai - Respondent
W.P. No. 15465 of 2015 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 16-08-2022
Pension Scheme - Writ Petition - Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 - Regulation 29 - Sheelkumar Jain case - Maharaj Krishan Bhatt case - Vijaya Bank case - P.Vijaya Narayana Reddy case - M.R.Prabhakar case - Life Insurance Corporation of India case
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ to direct the bank to extend the option to join the pension scheme, claiming he fulfilled the conditions for voluntary retirement but had not opted for the Pension Regulations in response to the circular of the Bank in 1995.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, having submitted his resignation, was treated as a resigned employee and not eligible for the pension scheme. The court held that the scope of the pension scheme was extended only to serving and retired employees, not resigned employees.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, as a resigned employee, was entitled to the pension scheme despite fulfilling the conditions for voluntary retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various judgments to establish that resignation and retirement have different legal implications, and the Pension Regulations did not apply to resigned employees. The court emphasized that the scope of the pension scheme was not extended to resigned employees.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was held not entitled to the pension scheme as a resigned employee.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent Bank to extend to the petitioner option to join the pension scheme, namely, Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, in accordance with their circular bearing Misc.No: EST/62/2010-11 dated 30.08.2010.)
1.The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to extend to the petitioner option to join the pension scheme, namely, Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, in accordance with their circular bearing Misc.No: EST/62/2010-11 dated 30.08.2010.
2. The petitioner was appointed in the respondent / Bank as clerk on 16.05.1979 and left the service of the Bank on completion of 21 years and 1 month service on 30.06.2000, due to unavoidable circumstances on resignation.
3. The petitioner states that Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations providing for voluntary retirement after completing 20 years of qualifying service came into force from 01.11.1993. Due to delay in implementation of the pension regulations some employees, who were eligible to retire under Regulation 29 of Pension Regulation had resigned between 01.11.1993 and 29.09.1995. All those employees have been granted pension by the bank treating them as having voluntarily retired.
4. The petitioner had not opted for Pension Regulations in response to the circular of the Bank in 1995, offering the pension option in lieu of contributory provident fund and therefore, he was not governed by the pension regulations, despite the fact that he fulfilled all the conditions for voluntary retirement.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted his resignation, which was accepted by the respondent / Bank. In view of the fact that the petitioner is not opted under the Pension Regulation, the Provident Fund to the petitioner was settled by the respondent / Bank.
6. The respondent issued a circular on 30.08.2010 with annexure to extend the option to join the pension scheme to both the serving workmen / Officers and retirees and eligible dependents of the deceased workmen / Officers. However, it is not in dispute that the option was not extended to the resigned employees.
7. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:
(a) In the case of Sheelkumar Jain Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 197, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made the following observations:
“22. We may now look at Paras 22 and 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme which are quoted hereinbelow:
“22.Forfeiture of service.—Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination or compulsory retirement of an employee from the service of the corporation or a company shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits.
***
30.Pension on voluntary retirement.—(1) At any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than ninety days, in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service:
Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not apply to an employee who is on deputation unless after having been transferred or having returned to India he has resumed charge of the post in India and has served for a period of not less than one year:
Provided further that this sub-paragraph shall not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement.
(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-para (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority:
Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effect
Resignation and retirement have different legal implications, and the scope of a pension scheme may not extend to resigned employees.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the distinction between voluntary retirement and resignation, as well as the forfeiture clause under the Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pen....
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.
The judgment established the distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement, upheld the disqualification of pensionary benefits in case of resignation, and emphasized that the petitioner kn....
(1) Resignation and Voluntary Retirement are different – Employees resigning from service and employees retiring from service voluntarily constitute two different classes – Treating two classes diffe....
Point of Law : In service jurisprudence, the expressions “superannuation”, “voluntary retirement”, “compulsory retirement” and “resignation” convey different connotations. Voluntary retirement and re....
Resignation entails forfeiture of past service, making the employee ineligible for pensionary benefits.
Resigned employees are not eligible for pensionary benefits under the Indian Overseas Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
