ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to the impugned letter dated 04.07.2018 issued by the second respondent / Chief Manager, HRMD-Pension Cell, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Anna Salai, Chennai and to quash the same and direct the respondents to process the application of the petitioner for pension dated 27.02.2013 and sanction pension to the petitioner from the date when he was relieved from service on 16.06.2008 within a time frame.

2. The petitioner had joined the service of the erstwhile Bharath Overseas Bank on 17.04.1974 as a Clerk. He was promoted as Scale I Officer in the year 1982 and was transferred to Burra Bazar Branch at Calcutta during 1988. At that particular point of time, he was issued with a charge memo consequent to allegations of misappropriation alleging that he had acted in collusion with the Branch Manager there and with some customers, and thereby caused loss to the bank. An order of dismissing him from service was passed on 19.07.1993.

3. The petitioner had filed an Appeal before the Board of Directors, who dismissed the same. The petitioner filed a further Appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 41(2) of the Tamilnadu Shops and Establishment Act1947. That Appellate Authority set aside the order of dismissal. The respondent bank filed W.P.No. 9537 of 1997 which was allowed by an order dated 01.04.2023. The petitioner then filed W.A.No. 1781 of 2003 and a Division Bench of this Court allowed the Appeal and restored the order setting aside the order of dismissal. The petitioner further stated that the respondents had filed a review before the Division Bench, which was however dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service and was posted as Assistant Manager at Nagapattinam Main Branch.

4. The petitioner then opted for voluntary retirement from service in accordance with the Regulation 29 of Indian Overseas Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 and submitted an application to that effect on 24.09.2008. The petitioner claimed that he had to necessarily seek voluntary retirement in view of the health condition of his wife. The application for voluntary retirement was however kept pending for two months. The petitioner then submitted a resignation letter on 24.11.2008 to the Branch Manager of Nagapattinam Branch. This particular resignation letter was also kept pending and after seven months, it was accepted and according to the petitioner, he was relieved from service by an order dated 16.06.2009.

5. The petitioner claimed that he had put in 35 years and 2 months of service and was therefore eligible for pension under the Pension Rule 1995. During his service, he had contributed his portion from his salary towards provident fund and the respondent Bank had also given their contribution. The petitioner claimed that the gratuity amount payable to him was credited after about four years from the date of his resignation. He stated that the contribution towards provident fund by the Bank was held back. The petitioner was therefore of the opinion that his request seeking to pension was under consideration of the respondents.

6. The petitioner thereafter stated that thereafter while the application was kept pending, the respondents had brought about, consequent to a pension settlement dated 29.10.1993, a pension Regulation 1995. He had not opted for the same. Thereafter, the scheme was further extended and an opportunity was given, even to those who had retired to join the pension scheme. The petitioner applied for joining in the pension scheme in the prescribed form on 27.02.2013 and offered to refund the provident fund contribution of the respondents together with interest. 7. The impugned order was then passed on 04.03.2018 rejecting his request. In the impugned order, the reason given was that the said offer would be available only to those who had retired from service and to those who had voluntarily ret