The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Scheme extended benefits of pension under the Pension Regulations, entitling the petitioner to pension despite the 15-year service requirement.

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The petitioner claims pension in terms of the Punjab National Bank (Employees)Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as "pension Regulations" ).

2. The petitioner joined as Clerk-cum-Cashier with the Punjab National Bank on october 13,1986. The respondent Bank framed a Scheme called PNB Employees Voluntary retirement Scheme 2000 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Scheme" ). The said Scheme was to remain in operation from November 1, 2000 to November 30, 2000. All permanent full time employees of the Bank who have 15 years of service or 40 years of age were eligible to apply for voluntary retirement under the aforesaid Scheme. In terms of Rule 3.5 of the said Scheme, an employee seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme was eligible for pension including commuted value of pension as per Scheme, The relevant clause reads as under: "3.5 Other Benefits an employee seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme will be eligible for the following benefits in addition to the ex gratia amount mentioned in para 6 of the scheme:

i)Gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or Gratuity payable under the Service rules as the case may be, as per existing rules;

ii) a) Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per PNB (Employees) Pension regulations, 1995 or

b) Banks contribution towards PF as per existing rules. Hi) Leave encashment as per existing rules".

3 The request of the petitioner to seek voluntary retirement was accepted on december 30, 2000. Prior to the said communication, the petitioner has sought to withdraw his offer to seek voluntary retirement on account of change in his family circumstances. Such request was declined by the respondent-Bank. Though the petitioner has challenged the acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement after its withdrawal but the said aspect has attained finality with the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in Bank of india and others V/s. O. P. Swaranakar etc. AIR 2003 SC 858 : (2003) 2 SCC 721 : 2003-1-LLJ-819, as modified on January 21, 2004, annexure P-3, reported as Punjab National bank V/s. Virender Kumar Goel and Others AIR 2004 SC 3988 : (2004) 2 SCC 193 : 2004-I-LLJ-1057.

4. It is the claim of the petitioner that in terms of the Scheme, the petitioner is entitled to pension as per Pension Regulations. The qualifying service in terms of the said regulations is 10 years of service in the Bank on the date of his retirement. Relying upon clauses 14 and 28 of the Pension Regulations read with Clause 3.5 of the Scheme, it is contended by the petitioner that he is entitled to pension.

5. It is contended by the petitioner that a circular dated December 19, 2000, Annexure p-7, was issued by the respondent Bank on the basis of communication from the Indian Bank association. The banks were advised to incorporate the amendment to Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulations. As per the amendment proposed, such pension would be payable after having service for a minimum period of 15 years. It is contended that such amendment was not carried out and, therefore, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for pension for the reason that he has not completed 15 years of service is based upon non-existent Rules.

6. The said claim of the petitioner for pension has been decided vide letter dated April 23, 2001, Annexure P-6, on the ground that the petitioner has not put in minimum period of service of 15 years which is pre-requisite for pension under the Scheme. In reply, the stand of the respondent Bank is that the claim of the petitioner for pension is based upon Regulation 28, which has been amended from time to time. It is pointed out that, as per Regulation 28, pension would be payable to a person who has put in minimum period of 15 years service. As the petitioner had put in 14 years 2 months and 19 days service, therefore, he is not eligible for pension. The relevant extract from Para No.6 of the written statement reads as under: "6. That the con