Allowed

Ram Chander Krothwal v. Punjab National Bank

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Jul 2009CWP/7931/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's claim for pension, holding him entitled under Regulation 14 of the Pension Regulations based on his 10 years of qualifying service despite the 20-year requirement under Regulation 29, relying on a prior judgment.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to take appropriate steps for payment of pension to the petitioner within three months from the date of the order.

Ram Chander Krothwal Vs Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No. 7931 of 2001 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 15.07.2009

¶3

Ram Chander Krothwal

¶4

.... PETITIONER

¶5

Versus

¶6

Punjab National Bank and others

¶7

..... RESPONDENTS

¶8

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

¶9

Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Yashdeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. G.S. Bajwa, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶11

¶12

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

¶13

The petitioner, who is working as Clerk-cum-Cashier-cumGodown Keeper in Punjab National Bank, Halu Bazar, Bhiwani, has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 20.4.2001 (Annexure P-4), whereby his claim for pension was rejected on the ground that he had not completed the minimum period of service of 20 years under the Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as `the Pension Regulations').

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000, he applied for voluntary retirement. His request

¶15

CWP No. 7931 of 2001

¶16

-2-

¶17

was accepted and he was granted voluntary retirement on 20.12.2000. As per the said Scheme, an employee can seek voluntary retirement after completion of 15 years of service or 40 years of age. On the day, when the petitioner was granted voluntary retirement, he was over 40 years of age and had completed more than 10 years of service. It is the case of the petitioner that under Regulation 14 of the Pension Regulations, he became entitled for pension, as he was having to his credit more than 10 years of qualifying service. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner was entitled for pension only on completion of 20 years of qualifying service under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations.

¶18

The similar controversy came before this Court in CWP No. 1350 of 2005, titled as Dharam Pal Singh versus Punjab National Bank, which was allowed on 25.1.2008, while observing as under :-

¶19

“The arguments that the claim of the petitioner for pension is governed by Regulation 29 is wholly misconceived. Regulation 29 i.e. Pension on Voluntary Retirement, is complete code in itself. Under the said Regulation, pension is payable to an employee who has completed twenty years of qualifying service who has given notice of not less than three months in writing. Still further, the employee has a right to seek withdrawal of his offer for voluntary retirement before the retirement becomes effective.

¶20

Neither the petitioner has given three months notice nor the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he has not completed 20 years of qualifying service. If Regulation 29 is to be extended to the petitioner then he had a

¶21

CWP No. 7931 of 2001

¶22

-3-

¶23

right to seek withdrawal of his offer to seek voluntary retirement as well. Therefore, the respondent Bank has rightly not relied upon Regulation 29 in the reply filed.

¶24

Regulation 29 is a general Regulation which is applicable to all the employees of the Bank independent of the Scheme. If an employee of the Bank completes 20 years of qualifying service, he is entitled to voluntary retirement. Such is the retirement falling within the meaning of section 2 (y) (b) of the Regulations. The Scheme under which the petitioner has opted for retirement is not part of the Regulations. Pension Regulations became applicable to the petitioner in terms of clause 3.5 of the Scheme. Therefore, Regulation 29 cannot be extended to in respect of the claim of the petitioner for pension.

¶25

As per Scheme, the eligibility to seek retirement is after 15 years of qualifying service or 40 years of age. The petitioner is over 40 years of age and has 10 years of qualifying service. Such service under Regulation 14 is the qualifying service for payment of dues on retirement. The petitioner fulfils the said condition. Clause 3.5 of the Scheme extends benefit of pension under Pension Regulations. As per Regulation 14, 10 years is the period of qualifying service. Therefore, a co-joint reading of the eligibility condition and the benefits payable under the Scheme read with Regulation 14, the petitioner is entitled to pension.

¶26

The decision in Annexure P-7 cannot be made applicable to the petitioner for the reason that the same has been communicated after the petitioner opted for retirement under the Scheme. Still further, the said decision is in the nature of executive instructions and, therefore, cannot override the Scheme for voluntary retirement published and the Pension

¶27

CWP No. 7931 of 2001

¶28

-4-

¶29

Regulations. Therefore, the provision of 15 years qualifying service for grant of pension is ineffective qua the rights of the petitioner for grant of pension under the Pension Regulations.

¶30

In view thereof, present petition is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to pension under the Pension Regulations. The respondents shall take appropriate steps for payment of pension to the petitioner within three months from today.”

¶31

The instant petition was admitted on September 12, 2001. Now, the petitioner has filed an application (CM No. 7989 of 2009) to allow the writ petition in terms of the aforesaid judgment. Pursuant to the notice, Shri G.S. Bajwa, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the respondents. He has very fairly stated that the controversy involved in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, which goes in favour of the petitioner. However, he submits that against the said judgment of this Court, SLP has been filed, which is pending before the Supreme Court, though no stay has been granted.

¶32

In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed in the same terms, as in CWP No. 1350 of 2005, titled as Dharam Pal Singh versus Punjab National Bank, decided on 25.1.2008.

¶33

July 15, 2009 ndj

¶34

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE

Ram Chander Krothwal v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chander Krothwal v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Parminder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Datta Ram and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Shashi Bala Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Anoop Singh Vs P.S.E.B. and Ors.

Karma Devi Vs Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Alka Chaudhry Vs Vice Chancellor, Ch. Charan Singh Agril. & Anr.