JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 07.03.2020, passed by Respondent No.2, whereby Petitioner’s representation dated 31.07.2018 seeking pensionary benefits has been rejected on the ground that the resignation tendered by him entails forfeiture of his entire past service.

Writ of mandamus is sought for a direction to the Respondents to grant pensionary benefits to the Petitioner taking into account his long, continuous and unblemished service of 32 years.

2. Factual matrix to the extent relevant and necessary and emerging from the writ petition is that Petitioner was appointed to the post of Clerk with Punjab & Sind Bank/Respondent No.1 in January, 1977 and worked continuously and uninterruptedly for a period of 32 years. Intending to take voluntary retirement, Petitioner submitted an application dated 08.10.2008 albeit in the form of a resignation, since being a Contributory Provident Fund Optee (‘CPF Optee’), there was no provision to apply for voluntary retirement. At the time when the application was submitted, settlement talks between the Employees’ Union of the Banks and the Managements of different Banks were in the process of being finalized for introducing the Second Pension Option and persons like the Petitioner, who were Provident Fund Optees, were to be granted second option to apply for pension in lieu of Provident Fund, after finalization of the scheme.

3. As per the Petitioner, in this backdrop, Petitioner was advised by Respondent No.1 to seek conditional resignation. Accordingly, Petitioner while making the application unambiguously stated that he was a CPF Optee and was tendering resignation in lieu of a request for voluntary retirement and in case any further option for pension was allowed retrospectively, his resignation be treated as request for voluntary retirement, so that his period of service be treated as qualifying service for computation of pension under the Pension Rules. The conditional resignation of the Petitioner, with all the caveats was accepted by the Respondents vide letter dated 09.01.2009 and Petitioner was relieved with effect from the same day.

4. Memorandum of Settlement, incorporating the Second Pension Option was finalized between the Union of Banks’ Employees and the Indian Bank Association on 27.04.2010 and as required under the settlement, Petitioner duly submitted his option for pension in lieu of Provident Fund on 05.10.2010. However, despite completing all formalities, Respondents did not release the pensionary benefits to the Petitioner. In December, 2010, letter was issued by the Respondents to the Petitioner asking him to submit his option for joining the Pension Scheme in the required format, which the Petitioner did, within the stipulated time. Several representations made by the Petitioner for release of pensionary benefits did not elicit a positive response and constrained by the circumstances, Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court bearing W.P.(C) No.6539/2019 seeking a direction for grant of pension. Writ petition was disposed of by the Court vide order dated 31.05.2019 directing Respondent No.1 to decide the representation dated 31.07.2018 by passing a speaking order and granting liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the same in case he was still aggrieved. Pursuant to the said order, Respondent No.1 decided the representation and rejected the same vide order dated 07.03.2020, which is impugned herein, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to pension since his entire past service was forfeited on account of the resignation tendered by him.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that Petitioner had tendered conditional resignation stating unequivocally that he reserved his right to opt for the pension scheme as and when the same was finalized