The court established that previously unraised claims based on a bipartite settlement could be pursued in subsequent proceedings, despite prior judgments on different grounds.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner retired from the service of State Bank of Travancore on 31/3/2001 under the SBT Voluntary retirement scheme (circular No.2/2001 dated 20/1/2001). Under the VRS scheme,persons who have put in 15 years of service or have completed 40 years of age as on 31/1/2001, were eligible to claim the benefit of scheme and thereby,they were entitled to various terminal benefits, including pension in terms of State Bank of Travancore(Employees)Pension Regulation 1995. Subsequently, State Bank of India, acquired by way of amalgamation, the business, including the assets and liabilities of the State Bank of Travancore, by virtue of the Provisions of State Bank of India Act, 1955 on 12/2/2017.

2. According to the petitioner,he had entered service of the State Bank of Travancore on 1979 and has thereby put in 21 years and four months of service. Though he was given various benefits, by Ext.P2 communication, he was informed that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of qualifying service as per regulation No.29 of the State Bank of Travancore(Employees)Pension Regulations, 1995 and hence not entitled for pension.This is challenged in this writ petition.

3. Petitioner contended that the Government of India by Ext.P3 communication dated 5/9/2000, had directed Indian Bank Associations to work out modalities and to suggest amendments required to be made to the pension regulations to ensure that employees with 15 years of service also get the benefit of pension. By Ext.P4 communication, the Indian Banks Association addressed all public sector banks to make necessary amendments to regulation No.28, to extend the benefit to employees who had retired under the special scheme. Though the Government of India had directed the SBI to carry out necessary amendments in the pension Regulations of Associate Banks of SBI by Ext.P5 communication, the State Bank of India did not amend the State Bank of Travancore(Employees)

Pension regulations, 1995.

4. Another contention of the petitioner was that, by virtue of Regulation 2(y) of pension Regulation 1995, read with Regulation 14, the persons who have rendered minimum ten years of service on the date of retirement, is entitled for pension. However, in the meanwhile, several similarly situated persons who had availed the VRS scheme had approached this court seeking the benefit of pension. Petitioner filed W.P. (C) No.19093/2006 seeking the relief. In Ext.P6 counter affidavit, it was stated that the petitioner had put in 18 years and 9 months service at the time of retirement and in the light of Regulation 29 which prescribed minimum 20 years of qualifying service, the petitioner was held to be not entitled for the benefit. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

5. Yet another contention of the petitioner was that, Ext.P7 Bipartite settlement dated 27/4/2010 was entered into between the Indian Banks Association and the workmen on 27/4/2010. By virtue of the bipartite settlement, the employees who had ceased to be in service after 29/9/1995 in case of Nationalized Banks, and in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India on 26/3/1996 on account of voluntary retirement under special scheme after completing service for a minimum period of 15 years shall be entitled to exercise the option to join the pension scheme, subject to the terms and conditions. Thereafter, several retired employees of State Bank of Travancore who were denied pension, moved this Court. By Ext.P8 judgment in W.P.(C) No.26563/2012, it was declared that the petitioners therein and who were similarly situated as that of the petitioners were entitled for pension under the bipartite settlement and also under the State Bank of Travancore Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The bank challenged the above judgment in W.A.No. 947/2014 and connected cases, which were dismissed by Ext.P9 judgment, confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner moved this court by filing W.P.(C) No.19093/2006 which was