Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
P.V.S. Sudhakar Rao - Appellant
Versus
Indian Overseas Bank Rep.by its Chairman, Chennai & Another - Respondent
W.P.No. 30764 of 2014
Decided On : 25-07-2022
Pension Scheme - Indian Overseas Bank - Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 - [VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME] - [PENSION SCHEME] - [Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, Regulation 29] - The court discussed the petitioner's eligibility for the pension scheme under the Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, focusing on the distinction between voluntary retirement and resignation. The court considered relevant case law and held that the petitioner, having submitted a resignation letter on the same day as the voluntary retirement scheme application, could not claim eligibility for the pension scheme as a retired employee. The court emphasized the forfeiture clause under the regulations and concluded that the petitioner, as a resigned employee, was not entitled to the pension scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Indian Overseas Bank, sought a writ of declaration to declare the bank's refusal to accept his application for enrolling in the Pension Scheme as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner had initially submitted an application for Voluntary Retirement Scheme but also submitted a resignation letter on the same day. The court considered the petitioner's eligibility for the pension scheme under the Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, having submitted a resignation letter on the same day as the voluntary retirement scheme application, could not claim eligibility for the pension scheme as a retired employee. The court emphasized the forfeiture clause under the regulations and concluded that the petitioner, as a resigned employee, was not entitled to the pension scheme.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, who had submitted a resignation letter on the same day as the voluntary retirement scheme application, could claim eligibility for the pension scheme as a retired employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the distinction between voluntary retirement and resignation, as well as the forfeiture clause under the Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. The court held that the petitioner, as a resigned employee, was not entitled to the pension scheme.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court held that the petitioner, as a resigned employee, was not entitled to the pension scheme.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ ofDeclaration, declaring the action of the respondents in not accepting the application of the petitioner dated 12.10.2010 for enrolling in the Pension Scheme of the Indian Overseas Bank as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and contrary to Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 and consequently direct the respondents to pay pension from 12.10.2010 being the date, when the petitioner exercised his option to join the Pension Scheme, continue to pay pension every month and pay arrears of pension along with 12% interest.)
1. The writ of declaration is filed, to declare the action of the respondents in not accepting the application of the petitioner dated 12.10.2010 for enrolling in the Pension Scheme of the Indian Overseas bank as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and contrary to Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 and consequently direct the respondents to pay pension from 12.10.2010 being the date, when the petitioner exercised his option to join the Pension Scheme, continue to pay pension every month and pay arrears of pension along with 12% interest.
2. The petitioner joined the services of the Bharat Overseas Bank on 03.03.1980. On 29.10.1993, a settlement signed for introduction of pension in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund. That is an employee, who wants to switch over to Pension instead of Provident Fund should exercise an option. It was also agreed that Officers, who had retired on or after 01.01.1986 would also be given the option to elect for pension. The Bharat Overseas Bank was merged with Indian Overseas Bank on 12.03.2007. The petitioner submitted an application to be relieved under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 02.10.2008. On the same day, on 02.10.2008, the petitioner submitted his resignation from the services of the Indian Overseas Bank. He requested that he be relieved at the earliest. Thus, the respondents accepted the resignation of the writ petitioner on 28.11.2008 and relieved him from services. The petitioner till the date of his resignation, had not made a request to opt for Pension. Thus, the Provident Fund dues to the petitioner was settled by the respondent-Bank. The petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.12,45,817/- towards Provident Fund. On 27.04.2010, the Banks agreed to provide employees one more option (second option) to switch over from Provident Fund to Pension, if they so desired. This benefit was to be given not only to serving employees, but also to retired employees.
3. On 04.10.2010, application given by the petitioner, requesting that Pension option be extended. As the option was extended to resigned employees, the petitioner was not entitled to make an option since he is a resigned employee. On 21.11.2014, after a lapse of four years, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the Bank to act on his request and pay him pension.
4. The above narrated facts are not disputed between the parties.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner had initially submitted an application for Voluntary Retirement Scheme. When he submitted an application for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and the authorities have orally informed him that he is not eligible for Voluntary Retirement Scheme, he was forced to submit his resignation due to his ill-health and personal reasons. Thus, he has submitted a letter of resignation, stating that due to ill-health and personal reasons, he had resigned the job. Therefore, for all purposes, he should be considered as a Voluntary Retirement Scheme employee. When the second option was extended to the retired employees, the petitioner also must be fit in that category as he had initially submitted an application for Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The petitioner had completed 20 years of service, which is a requisite eligibility for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and thus, the benefit
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....
Resignation and retirement have different legal implications, and the scope of a pension scheme may not extend to resigned employees.
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....
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.
(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....
Approaching the court with clean hands and disclosing all material facts is essential for seeking equitable relief.
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
