Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hagami Lal vs State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur And Anr on 9 December, 2022
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 21) [CW-3028/2006]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3028/2006
Hagami Lal S/o Madhav Lal, by caste Mewara, R/o Mewara
Bhawan, Village & Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Bank Of India through the Chief General Manager, Local
Head Office, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Asind, Distt. Bhilwara.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Bhandari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate
through VC, assisted by Mr. Akhilesh
Rajpurohit
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
JUDGMENT
Reserved on 01/12/2022 Pronounced on 09/12/2022 (PER DINESH MEHTA J.)
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"It is therefore, prayed that :
I. By an appropriate writ, order or direction clause 22(1) to the extent of disqualification on resignation of Pension Regulations 1995 issued by the respondents may kindly be declared illegal and be set aside as being ultra vires the Constitution of India.(Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM)
(2 of 21) [CW-3028/2006]
II. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the
petitioner be held to be eligible and entitled for grant of pension and commutation of pension from 5.12.2003.
III. If during pendency of the writ petition, the respondents issued any letter/order refusing to grant pension to the petitioner on any ground, then by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the same may also be quashed.
IV. Alternatively, by an appropriate writ, order or
direction it may be declared that the
petitioner who resigned from service of the Bank is entitled and eligible for compassionate allowance (pension) as per clause 31. V. In the further alternative and without prejudice to above, by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to refund the credit balance to the provident fund account of the petitioner which was transferred to the pension fund with accrued interest.
VI. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.
VII. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners."
2. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur under the sportsman category in the pay scale of Rs. 325-1040. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur later on merged with State Bank of India.
3. In the year 1995, in exercise of the powers available under sub-clause (i)(1) and clause 'O' of sub-section (2) of Section 63 of (Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM) (3 of 21) [CW-3028/2006] the State Bank of India Subsidiary Banks Act, 1959, the State Bank of India in consultation with the Board of Directors of erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and after due approval of the Reserve Bank of India promulgated State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations of 1995"), which came into force w.e.f. 29.09.1995.
4. According to the petitioner, even after merger of the erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur with the respondent - Bank (State Bank of India), the petitioner's rights claimed in the instant petition would be governed by the Regulations of 1995.
5. When the Assembly Elections for the State of Rajasthan were notified to be held in the month of November, 2003, the petitioner desirous of contesting election submitted an application dated 08.09.2003 (Annx.7) and sought Bank's permission to contest the election. In furtherance of petitioner's request, the bank permitted the petitioner to contest the election vide its communication dated 14.10.2003 (Annx.8), however, with a condition that on being elected, he will have to resign from the bank. It was clearly indicated in the letter dated 14.10.2003 that the application seeking permission (dated 08.09.2003) would itself be considered as resignation, if a formal resignation is not submitted.
6. After being elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly on 04.12.2003, by way of letter dated 09.02.2004 (Annx.9), the petitioner tendered his resignation. It may be noted that said resignation was unqualified and unconditional. (Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM)
(4 of 21) [CW-3028/2006]
7. According to the petitioner, having tendered resignation, he had orally requested the respondent - bank to give him monthly pension but no heed was paid whereafter, the petitioner moved a representation dated 27.02.2006 and requested the bank to pay monthly pension. When the bank orally informed the petitioner that as per Regulation 22(1) of the Regulations of 1995, he having resigned is not entitled for the pension, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the Regulation 22(1) of the Regulations of 1995.
8. Mr. Anil Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner having apprised the backdrop facts, asserted that when the Regulations of 1995 were brought in force, the petitioner had opted for the pension and in spite of the fact that he has completed the qualifying services, the respondent - bank has denied him the benefit of pension on the pretext that he has resigned from the services.
9. Learned counsel navigated the Court through various provisions of the Regulations of 1995 and argued that Regulation 22(1), which creates an embargo on an employee's rights of getting pension simply because he has resigned from services is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards Regulation 31 of the Regulations of 1995 more particularly, proviso thereto and wondered that when an employee, who has been dismissed, removed or terminated from service is entitled for two-third of the pension how can an employee who has resigned, be denied such right?
(Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM)
(5 of 21) [CW-3028/2006]
11. Though, validity of Regulation 31 of the Regulations of 1995 has not been challenged expressly, but learned counsel made a submission that Regulation 31 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness inasmuch as conscious exclusion of the class of employees, who have resigned, from applicability of sub-clause (i) of proviso to Regulation 31(1) of the Regulations of 1995 is without any rationale.
12. He further argued that simply because the petitioner's services ended on account of resignation, his case cannot be treated worse than an employee, who has been dismissed, removed or terminated. He expressed his concern that when in extreme cases of dismissal, removal or termination, two-third of the pension payable can be given, what good object can be said to have been achieved by depriving the employees of such right, who have chosen to resign.
13. Learned counsel relied upon the following judgments and submitted that in light of these judgments, the petitioner is entitled for pensionary benefits.
i. Shashikala Devi v. Central Bank of India &Ors. (2014) 16 SCC 260 ii. ASGER Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (2016) 13 SCC 797 iii. National Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors. v. Kirpal Singh and Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 189
14. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit at the outset submitted that when the petitioner sought permission for contesting election, the bank had (Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM) (6 of 21) [CW-3028/2006] adopted a lenient view and instead of asking him to resign forthwith, allowed him to contest the election, with a stipulation that in case of being elected, the petitioner would have to tender his resignation. Learned Senior Counsel argued that instead of resigning, had the petitioner opted for voluntary retirement, he was required to serve atleast 3 months' notice and then, in such case, the bank had an option of not acceding to his request. He argued that the petitioner cannot claim parity with the employees taking voluntary retirement.
15. It was argued by learned Senior Counsel that despite being aware of the provisions of Regulation 22, the petitioner had resigned from the services and neither at the time of seeking permission to contest the election nor at the time of resigning, the petitioner had even asked for pensionary benefits (though same were not available). It was argued that after two years of cessation of services, the petitioner cannot claim pensionary benefits and lay challenge to the Regulations of the Bank simply finding that some regulation is coming in the way of his purported rights of getting pension.
16. Learned Senior Counsel took the Court through various provisions of the Regulations of 1995 more particularly, Regulation 29, 30, 31, 32 & 33 in order to explain the overall scheme of pension and argued that Regulation 22(1) creates a clear fetter upon an employees' rights of getting pension in the eventuality of resignation; termination; dismissal or removal. He submitted that Regulation Nos. 30, 31, 32 & 33 however carve out exceptions in certain eventualities and provide for compensation or special type (Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM) (7 of 21) [CW-3028/2006] of pension. But neither does any such provision apply in the case of the petitioner, who has resigned nor can such provision be made applicable to the petitioner or any such employee, who has resigned.
17. It was argued by learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner's reliance on Regulation 31 of the Regulations of 1995 is absolutely misplaced. While arguing that resignation is a unilateral act, which requires acceptance simplicitor, whereas, voluntary retirement, dismissal, removal or termination of service involve bilateral acts - voluntary retirement pre-supposes acceptance of request for voluntary retirement from a particular date and in case of termination, dismissal or removal of service, an enquiry is provided under applicable law.
18. He submitted that Regulation 31 of the Regulations of 1995 is meant to cover those cases, in which despite forfeiture of service and pension, the competent authority may in an appropriate case order to pay compassionate allowance upto two-third of the pension, which would have been admissible to an employee. He submitted that grant of compassionate allowance is a discretion of the employer to be exercised in deserving case with a view to mitigate the financial loss or constraint which might be caused to an employee on account of dismissal, removal or termination of his service.
19. In response to petitioner's argument relating to the terms of settlement dated 10.04.2002, learned Senior Counsel submitted that same is of little avail to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner having resigned is not entitled for the benefit of pension (Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM) (8 of 21) [CW-3028/2006] under the Regulations of 1995. He added that the effect of terms of settlement dated 10.04.2002 is, that in place of two-third of the amount equivalent to pension, the employees have been held entitled for the amount equal to full pension under the head 'compassionate allowance'. But, since the petitioner is not entitled for the compassionate allowance, the terms of settlement dated 10.04.2002 does not in any manner help the petitioner, added Mr. Singhvi.
20. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
21. Before adverting to rival contentions, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Regulations of 1995, which hereby do;
"22. Event of disqualification -
(1) Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank including that of an employee who is deemed to have voluntarily retired from the Bank's service in terms of the provision for voluntary cessation of employment contained in Bipartite Settlement shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits;
(emphasis supplied) (2) An interruption in the service of a Bank employee entails forfeiture of his past service, except in the following cases namely
-
(a) authorised leave of absence :
(b) suspension where it is immediately followed by reinstatement, whether in the same or a different post, or where the bank employee dies or is permitted to retire or is retired on attaining the (Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM) (9 of 21) [CW-3028/2006] age of compulsory retirement while under suspension;
(c) Transfer to non-qualifying service in an establishment under the control of the Government or Bank if such transfer has been ordered by a competent authority in the public interest;
(d) joining time while on transfer from one post to another.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
regulation (2), the competent authority may by order, commute retrospectively the periods of absence without leave as extraordinary leave.
(4) (a) In the absence of a specific indication to the contrary in the service record, an interruption between two spells of service rendered by an employee shall be treated as automatically condoned and the pre-
interruption service treated as qualifying service;
(b) Nothing in clause (a) shall apply to interruption caused by resignation, dismissal or removal from service or for participation in a strike :
Provided that before making an entry in the service record of the Bank employee regarding forfeiture of past service because of his participation in strike, an opportunity of representation may be given to such bank employee.
... xxx ....
29. Pension on Voluntary Retirement -
(1) On or after the 1stday of November, 1993 at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service he may by giving notice of not less than three months (Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM) (10 of 21) [CW-3028/2006] in writing to the competent authority retire from service:
Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who is on deputation or on study leave abroad unless after having been transferred or having returned to India he has resumed charge of the post in India and has served for a period of not less than one year:
Provided further that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking or company or institution or body, whether incorporated or not to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement: Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who is deemed to have retired in accordance with clause (1) of regulation 2.
(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-regulation (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority:
Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.
(3) (a) An employee referred to in sub-
regulation (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons therefor;
(b) On receipt of a request under
clause(a), the appointing authority may
subject to the provisions of sub-
regulation(2) consider such request for the (Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM) (11 of 21) [CW-3028/2006] curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the notice of three months.
(4) An employee, who has elected to retire under this regulation and has given necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority;
Provided that the request for such
withdrawal shall be made before the
intended date of his retirement.
(5) The qualifying service of an employee
retiring voluntarily under this regulation shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty-three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation.
(6) The pension of an employee retiring under this regulation shall be based on the average emoluments as defined under clause (d) of regulation 2 of these regulations and the increase not exceeding five years in his qualifying service, shall not entitle him to any notional fixation of pay for the purpose of calculating his pension.(Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM)
(12 of 21) [CW-3028/2006]
30. Invalid Pension-
(1) Invalid Pension may be granted to an
employee who:-
(a) has rendered minimum ten years of
service; and
(b) retires from the service, on or after the
1st day of November, 1993 on account
of any bodily or mental infirmity which permanently incapacitate him for the service.
(2) An employee applying for an invalid pension shall submit a medical certificate of incapacity from a medical officer approved by the Bank.
(3) Where the Medical Officer approved by the Bank has declared the employee fit for further service of less laborious character than that which he had been doing, he should, provided he is willing to be so employed, be employed on lower post and if there be no means of employing him even on a lower post, he may be admitted to invalid pension.
(4) No medical certificate of incapacity for
service may be accepted unless the
applicant obtains the medical certificate on production of a letter to show that the Competent Authority is aware of the intention of the applicant to appear before the medical officer approved by the Bank.
(5) The medical officer approved by the Bank shall also be supplied by the Competent Authority under whom the applicant is employed with a statement of what appears (Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM) (13 of 21) [CW-3028/2006] from official records to be the age of the applicant.
31. Compassionate Allowance--
(1) An employee. who is dismissed or removed or terminated from service, shall forfeit his pension.
Provided that the authority higher than the authority competent to dismiss or remove or terminate him from service may, if -
(i) such dismissal, removal, or
termination is on or after the 1 stday
of November, 1993; and
(ii) the case is deserving of special
consideration. sanction a
compassionate allowance not
exceeding two-thirds of the pension
which would have been admissible
to him on the basis of the qualifying
service rendered up to the date of
his dismissal, removal. or
termination.
(2) The Compassionate Allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub- regulation (1) shall not be less than the amount of minimum pension payable under regulation 36 of these regulations.
32. Premature Retirement Pension- Premature Retirement Pension may be granted to an employee who-
(a) has rendered minimum ten years of
service:
(b) retires from service on account of
orders of the Bank to retire prematurely in the public interest or for any other reason (Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM) (14 of 21) [CW-3028/2006] specified in service regulations or settlement, if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date.
33.Compulsory Retirement Pension -
(1) An employee compulsorily retired from service as a penalty on or after 1 stday of November, 1993 in terms of Service Regulations or Settlement by the authority higher than the authority competent to impose such penalty may be granted pension at a rate not less than two-thirds and not more than full pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date.
(2) Whenever the Competent Authority passes and order (whether original, appellate or in exercise of power of review) awarding pension at a rate less than the full pension admissible under these regulations, the Board of Directors or its Executive Committee shall be consulted before such order is passed.
(3) A pension granted or awarded under sub-
regulation (1) or, as the case may be, under sub-regulation (2), shall not be less than the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy five per mensem."
22. It is not in dispute that petitioner's application seeking permission to contest election was accepted by the respondent - bank with the stipulation that on being elected, he will have to (Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM) (15 of 21) [CW-3028/2006] resign. In furtherance of such stipulation, the petitioner had tendered his resignation on 09.02.2004. At the time of applying for permission to contest election and tendering resignation, the petitioner was cognizant of the fact that his right to get pension would be forfeited per force Clause 22(1) of the Regulations of 1995. At the time of tendering resignation, the petitioner had not even made a whisper about his pension and it is only after two years of being elected, for the first time, the petitioner wrote to the bank that his monthly pension be calculated and paid.
23. A perusal of Regulation 22 of the Regulations of 1995 leaves no room for ambiguity that the same creates a clear disqualification for pensionary benefits in case of resignation, dismissal, removal or termination of an employee including an employee who is deemed to have voluntarily retired from service. Regulation 22(1) provides that as per bipartite settlement, such contingencies shall entail forfeiture of an employee's entire past services and consequently, such employee shall not qualify for pensionary benefits.
24. In our opinion petitioner's challenge to Regulation 22(1) of the Regulations of 1995 is manifestly misconceived. Person who chooses to resign form a separate class cannot claim parity with another set or class of employees.
25. In Shashikala Devi v Central Bank of India and others, the question which arose was whether a communication seeking termination of services after 34 years owing to critical health condition was a letter of resignation simpliciter or could as well be treated as letter seeking voluntary retirement. Court held that (Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM) (16 of 21) [CW-3028/2006] such will depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and attending circumstances (only one year of service left). Court examined the true import of the letter and came to hold that letter was in essence seeking voluntary retirement and not resignation.
26. In our view, the aforesaid principles do not apply in the facets of the present case as the present petitioner knowingly resigned from his services in clear and unequivocal communication through letter dated 9.02.2004. Therefore, no ocassion arises to look into the true import of letter.
27. Reliance by the learned counsel on Asger Ibrahim Amin v Life Insurance Corporation of India is also misplaced. The case deals with letter written in year 1991 seeking termination of services on medical grounds, after completing more than 20 years of service. The issue here was whether the letter be treated as 'resignation' or 'voluntary retirement' as prior to the coming into force of the 1995 Pension Rules, no provision for voluntary retirement existed. The court here adopted a beneficial view and held that appellant cannot be deprived of the benefits just because no provision for voluntary retirement existed at that time.
28. However, in the case at hand, the Pension Rules of 1995 have been sufficiently established by this time and the petitioner cannot plead ignorance of his options. We think the above case does not buttress the petitioner's cause.
29. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. Vs. Kirpal Singh and Ors wherein the question that fell for determination was whether an employee who opted for retirement under the Special Voluntary (Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM) (17 of 21) [CW-3028/2006] Retirement Scheme, 2004 was entitled to pensionary benefits under General Insurance Pension Scheme 1995. The court while taking note of definition of terms 'retirement', 'superannuation pension' and 'voluntary retirement' read retirement appearing in 1995 scheme to include retirement under 2004 scheme.
30. The facts being totally distinguishable, the above cited judgment too is of no relevance here. A judgment is to be read for the law it lays down in reference to the given factual matrix. Observations made by the court must not be read dehors of the facts. In view of this, we find that the judgments cited by learned counsel in support of petitioner's claim are of no help to the petitioner.
31. In our opinion, there is nothing arbitrary or discriminatory in Regulation 22(1) inasmuch as on cessation of relationship of employer and employee, may it be by resignation or by order of dismissal, removal or termination in all contingencies, right to get pension has been denied. So far as Regulation 22 is concerned, it does not bring out any discrimination.
32. The petitioner has made a feeble attempt to bring his case within Regulation 31 of the Regulations of 1995 by arguing that if in case of dismissal, removal or termination, an employee can get pension upto two-third of the pension payable, how can an employee like the petitioner, who has resigned from services, be justifiably denied such benefits.
33. Petitioner's such argument also is bereft of any force. Regulation 31 does not provide for pension at all. As a matter of fact, it speaks of "compassionate allowance", which too is to be (Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM) (18 of 21) [CW-3028/2006] provided in case of dismissal, removal or termination to the extent of two-third of the "pension which would have been admissible to an employee".
34. A simple reading of clause (2) of proviso to Regulation 31(1) of the Regulations of 1995 goes to show that it is not pension and amount mentioned in Regulation 31 is compassionate allowance, which can be sanctioned by an authority higher than the disciplinary authority subject to maximum of two-thirds of the pension. Since the petitioner has not been dismissed, removed or terminated from service, he cannot claim his case to be governed by Regulation 31.
35. The petitioner's endeavor to claim parity or to portray himself to be standing on a better footing than the employees who have been dismissed, removed or terminated, is also unsustainable. Maybe, the petitioner stands on a better footing so far as his conduct during career as an employee is concerned, but then, as per Regulation 22, in cases of all types of cessations of service may it be resignation, may it be termination, dismissal or removal, the employee loses his right of pension. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim that the petitioner who has resigned from the services, has been discriminated.
36. As a matter of fact, Chapter V of the Regulations of 1995 provides for different classes of pension or allowances to be given in different contingencies. The petitioner can neither claim himself to be equal to an employee who has opted for voluntary retirement nor can he claim parity with the persons who have been dismissed, removed or terminated from service. Since Regulation (Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM) (19 of 21) [CW-3028/2006] 29 is specific to cases of voluntary retirement, regardless of the fact that the petitioner has completed qualifying service, he cannot claim pension. The reasons are not far to seek.
37. In case of voluntary retirement, an employee is required to give atleast three months' notice and that too is subservient of acceptance by the competent authority. Whereas, the petitioner at his own will and volition resigned in a haste to get permission for contesting election. His case is required to be considered in light of the provisions applicable to his category - employees, who have resigned.
38. Learned Senior Counsel placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Senior Divisional Manager, LIC vs. Shree Lal Meena reported in (2019) 4 SCC 479 and drew Court's attention towards distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement from service. In the above case employees resigned from service when pension rules were not in force. Question arose about the retrospective application of pension rules and whether the employees were entitled to the benefit of pension under the scheme. The court while observing that the material point is that the employee has in fact resigned, distinguished between 'resignation' and 'retirement' and observed that:
"Regulation 2(y) under the Pension Regulations of 1995, had brought in 'voluntary retirement' in the definition of 'retirement', but had not considered it appropriate to bring in the concept of 'resignation'. Service jurisprudence, recognising the concept of 'resignation' and 'retirement' as different, and in the same Regulations these expressions being used in different connotations, left no manner of doubt that the benefit could not be extended, especially as (Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM) (20 of 21) [CW-3028/2006] resignation was one of the disqualifications for seeking pensionary benefits, under the Regulations."
39. The facts of the above case squarely apply to the case at hand as the communication seeking termination was in unequivocal terms a letter for resignation. Further, when different expressions like 'resignation', 'dismissal', 'removal', 'voluntary retirement', etc. have been used in the same Rules in different context, then all of them cannot be given same meaning.
40. In light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Senior Divisional Manager, LIC vs. Shree Lal Meena (supra), voluntary retirement cannot be equated with the resignation and therefore, petitioner's endeavor to get his case covered by Regulation 29 is bound to fail.
41. We do not find any substance in the petitioner's argument so far as validity of Regulation 22 of the Regulations of 1995 is concerned. During the course of submission, Mr. Bhandari learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to argue that non-inclusion of term (resigned) in sub-clause (i) of proviso to Regulation 31(1) is arbitrary. But in our opinion, Regulation 31 is meant for classes of employees, who have been dismissed, removed or terminated from service. As such, the cases of employees, who have resigned can neither be covered by such provision nor can the same be applied to the petitioner, who has resigned from his services.
42. That apart, Regulation 31 clearly provides that compassionate allowance can be paid, if an authority higher than the authority competent to dismiss or remove an employee from his service, may sanction such allowance in special and deserving cases. The petitioner's case cannot be brought under Regulation (Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:11 AM) (21 of 21) [CW-3028/2006] 31 of the Regulation of 1995 by any stretch of imagination or sympathetic consideration, as he had no occasion for making request when his services were brought to an end, by accepting his resignation.
43. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any substance and merit in the petitioner's challenge to Regulation 22. We also do not feel pursuaded to accede to petitioner's request to decide his case/claim in terms of Regulation 31 of the Regulations of 1995.
44. After having argued the case on merits, Mr. Bhandari made an alternative prayer by inviting Court's attention towards prayer clause No. (V) and sought for a direction to the respondent - bank to pay the amount lying in his provident fund account including employer's share thereupon along with interest.
45. On perusal of the communications dated 22.04.2004 & 24.04.2004 (Annx.10 & 11), it appears that an amount of Rs.1,60,313/- has been paid to the petitioner in this regard. But in any case, if the same has not been paid/refunded, the respondent - Bank is directed to return the petitioner's provident fund contribution along with Bank's share thereupon to the petitioner along with interest @ 6% per annum within a period of three months from today.
46. Except for the observations qua prayer No. (V), the petition is dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ
52-Inder/-
(Downloaded on 10/12/2022 at 12:00:12 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)