Madras High Court
V.Sriganesh vs Indian Overseas Bank on 16 August, 2022
Author: S.M. Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.No.15465 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.15465 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
V.Sriganesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
Indian Overseas Bank,
represented by the Chairman & Managing Director,
Central Office, 762, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent Bank to
extend to the petitioner option to join the pension scheme, namely, Indian
Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, in accordance
with their circular bearing Misc.No: EST/62/2010-11 dated 30.08.2010.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramesh
For Respondent : Mr.Haroon Al Rasheed
For M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to extend to the petitioner option to join the pension scheme, namely, Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 accordance with their circular bearing Misc.No: EST/62/2010-11 dated 30.08.2010.
2. The petitioner was appointed in the respondent / Bank as clerk on 16.05.1979 and left the service of the Bank on completion of 21 years and 1 month service on 30.06.2000, due to unavoidable circumstances on resignation.
3. The petitioner states that Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations providing for voluntary retirement after completing 20 years of qualifying service came into force from 01.11.1993. Due to delay in implementation of the pension regulations some employees, who were eligible to retire under Regulation 29 of Pension Regulation had resigned between 01.11.1993 and 29.09.1995. All those employees have been granted pension by the bank treating them as having voluntarily retired.
4. The petitioner had not opted for Pension Regulations in response to the circular of the Bank in 1995, offering the pension option in lieu of contributory provident fund and therefore, he was not governed by the pension regulations, despite the fact that he fulfilled all the conditions for voluntary retirement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015
5. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted his resignation, which was accepted by the respondent / Bank. In view of the fact that the petitioner is not opted under the Pension Regulation, the Provident Fund to the petitioner was settled by the respondent / Bank.
6. The respondent issued a circular on 30.08.2010 with annexure to extend the option to join the pension scheme to both the serving workmen / Officers and retirees and eligible dependents of the deceased workmen / Officers. However, it is not in dispute that the option was not extended to the resigned employees.
7. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:
(a) In the case of Sheelkumar Jain Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 197, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made the following observations:
“22. We may now look at Paras 22 and 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme which are quoted hereinbelow:
“22.Forfeiture of service.—Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination or compulsory retirement of an employee from the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 service of the corporation or a company shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits.
***
30.Pension on voluntary retirement.—(1) At any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than ninety days, in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service:
Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not apply to an employee who is on deputation 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-paragraph shall not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement.
(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-para (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority:
Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis before the expiry of the period specified in the said Page 4 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.
(3)(a) An employee referred to in sub-para (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than ninety days giving reasons therefor;
(b) on receipt of request under Para (a), the appointing authority may, subject to the provisions of sub-para (2), consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of ninety days 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 ninety days on the condition that the employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the notice of ninety days.
(4) An employee who has elected to retire under this paragraph 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 paragraph shall be increased https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the Page 5 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 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 retirement.
(6) The pension of an employee retiring under this paragraph shall be based on the average emoluments as defined under clause (d) of Para 2 of this Scheme 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.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this paragraph, the appointing authority shall be the appointing authority specified in Appendix I to this Scheme.”
25. Para 22 of the 1995 Pension Scheme states that the resignation of an employee from the service of the corporation or a company shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently he shall not qualify for pensionary benefits, but does not define the term “resignation”. Under sub-para (1) of Para 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme, an employee, who has completed 20 years of qualifying service, may by giving notice of not less than 90 days in writing to the appointing authority retire from service and under sub-para (2) of Para 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme, the notice of voluntary retirement shall require acceptance by the appointing authority. Since https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 “voluntary retirement” unlike “resignation” does not entail forfeiture of past services and instead qualifies for pension, an employee to whom Para 30 of the 1995 Pension Scheme applies cannot be said to have “resigned” from service.
29. These letters were written by the respondent because he realised that he would be deprived of his pension, gratuity, etc. as a consequence of his resignation. These subsequent letters dated 18-8-1984 and 22-8-1984 were not accepted and the respondent was struck off from the rolls of the Army on 24-8-1984. On these facts, the Court held: (P.S. Bhargava case [(1997) 2 SCC 28 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 290] , SCC p. 32, para 19) “19. … Once an officer has to his credit the minimum period of qualifying service, he earns a right to get pension and as the Regulations stand, that right [to get pension] can be taken away only if an order is passed under Regulation 3 or
16.”
(b) In the case of Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and another Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 24, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made the following observations:
“21. It was no doubt contended by the learned counsel for the respondent State that Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution cannot be invoked and pressed into service to perpetuate illegality. It was submitted that if one illegal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 action is taken, a person whose case is similar, cannot invoke Article 14 or 16 and demand similar relief illegally or against a statute.
22. There can be no two opinions about the legal proposition as submitted by the learned counsel for the State.
But in the case on hand, in our opinion, there was no illegality on the part of the learned Single Judge in allowing Writ Petition No. 519 of 1987 instituted by Abdul Rashid Rather and in issuing necessary directions. Since the action was legal and in consonance with law, the Division Bench confirmed it and this Court did not think it proper to interfere with the said order and dismissed special leave petition. To us, in the circumstances, the learned Single Judge was wholly right and fully justified in following the judgment and order in Writ Petition No. 519 of 1987 in the case of the present writ petitioners also.
23. In fairness and in view of the fact that the decision in Abdul Rashid Rather had attained finality, the State authorities ought to have gracefully accepted the decision by granting similar benefits to the present writ petitioners. It, however, challenged the order passed by the Single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court ought to have dismissed the letters patent appeal by affirming the order of the Single Judge. The letters patent appeal, however, was allowed by the Division Bench and the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was set aside. In our considered view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 legal, proper and in furtherance of justice, equity and fairness in action. The said order, therefore, deserves to be restored.”
(c) The High Court of Karnataka in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. Sri C.Narasimhappa in W.A.Nos.2956-2977/2012 dated 30.07.2012, held as follows:
“7. We must immediately pen down the circumstances in which the Writ Petitioners opted to 'resign' rather than 'retire'. At the material point of time, the Regulations debarred retirement where the concerned employees had participated in a strike. It is not disputed that from the very inception of its inclusion this clause was remonstrated against by the Unions, leading eventually to its withdrawal altogether. At that stage, the employees were given a second opportunity/option to opt for the pension scheme by returning the benefits already received by them and making pecuniary adjustment so as to fall in line with the pension formulations and calculation. Immediately, the Writ Petitioners had exercised the second option but it was the Bank which declined to admit them to the benefits of pension scheme. As in the other precedents, the fact that they had already put in requisite number of years of service qualifying them to pensionary benefits in accordance with the modified pension scheme, impel us likewise to hold them entitled to those benefits.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015
(d) The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of P.Vijaya Narayana Reddy Vs. Indian Overseas Bank in W.A.No.395 of 2008 dated 10.03.2017, held as follows:
“15. In Sheelkumar Jain’s case (supra 2), it is held that as per paragraph Nos.22 and 30 of the General Insurance (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995, resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of compulsory retirement of an employee from the service of a Corporation or a Company, shall entail for forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. Paragraph Nos.22 and 30 of the said Pension Scheme, 1995, is similar to the Regulation 22(1) of the Indian Overseas Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar issue in the aforesaid citation, held that an employee who has put up the required service, is entitled to pension in the Pension Scheme, 1995 and further held that the authorities concerned have to construe the statutory provisions in each case to find out whether the termination of service of an employee was a termination by way of resignation or a termination by way of voluntary retirement and while construing the statutory provisions, the Court has to keep in mind the purpose of the statutory provisions and the general purpose of the Pension Scheme https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 10 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 is to grant pensionary benefits to the employees, who had rendered service in the organization concerned and had retired after putting in the qualifying service as per the Regulations in the Pension Scheme, 1995. So, the Regulation 22(1) of Indian Overseas Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, has no application to the case on hand and the appellant-writ petitioner cannot be deprived pension and other benefits, as envisaged in the said Pension Scheme, 1995, since he has put up above 23 years of service, after giving three months notice in writing and his resignation being accepted by the appointing authority.”
8. Relying on the above judgments, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner reiterated that the petitioner exercised his option provided as second chance by the respondents and such an option is to be taken into consideration for grant of pension by treating the petitioner as a voluntary retiree.
9. The High Court of Karnataka, on similar circumstances, considered the case of a Bank employee. The Karnataka High Court considered the grounds that at the material point of time, the Regulations debarred retirement, where the concerned employees had participated in a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 strike. Therefore, the bar cannot held against an employee. In the event of exercising the option for pension scheme and accordingly, granted the benefits of pension scheme. The petitioner's case also fall under the similar circumstances and therefore, the writ petition is to be allowed.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the observations made in the Sheelkumar Jain case (cited supra) and contended that forfeiture of service contemplated under the Regulation may not have application as far as the case of the writ petitioner is concerned. Pension on voluntary retirement is to be taken into consideration.
11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent / Bank objected the said contention by stating that none of the judgments relied on by the petitioners have any direct application with reference to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The facts are not disputed between the parties. The writ petitioner, no doubt, submitted an application to be relieved under the Voluntarily Retirement Scheme on 02.10.2008. But, on the very same day, he has submitted his resignation letter and made a request to relieve him at the earliest. Therefore, the petitioner was not made to wait for 90 days and in lieu of the notice period, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 12 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 the salary was adjusted and he was relieved from the service on 28.11.2008 itself. The petitioner was relieved even before the completion of the notice period. The petitioner has not established that the Bank has rejected the V.R.S application on 02.10.2008. The petitioner has not even waited, till such time, the Bank took a decision on the VRS application.
The petitioner submitted the V.R.S application on 02.10.2008 and on the very same day, he submitted his resignation letter i.e., on 02.10.2008.
Therefore, the petitioner has not even allowed the respondent-Bank to consider his V.R.S application. Thus, all other contentions raised by the writ petitioner cannot be considered.
12. That apart, the consequences of resignation is known to the employees during the relevant point of time. The second option was given to the employees in the year 2010 including the retired employees. When the benefit of second option was extended to serving employees, it is to be noted that the said pension scheme was not extended to the resigned employees. When the petitioner is falling under the category of resigned employees, his application for grant of pension scheme was rejected by the competent authorities. It is contended that the writ petition itself was filed after a lapse of about four years from the application and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of latches also. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 13 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of M.R.Prabhakar and Others Vs. Canara Bank and Others reported in [(2012) 9 SCC 671], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made the following observations:
“14. The appellants, in our view, did not retire from the service, but resigned from the service. The appellants tried to build up a case that in the absence of a legal definition of “voluntary retirement” or in the absence of legally prescribed consequences of “resignation”, it must be understood in the sense of voluntary relinquishment of service. It was pointed out that there can be no distinction between “voluntary retirement” and “resignation” and those expressions are to be understood in their ordinary literal sense.
15. We find it difficult to accept the contentions raised by the appellants. There is no ambiguity in the definition clause under Regulation 2(y) which has statutorily brought in the “voluntarily retirement” as “retirement”. Though the concept of “resignation” is well known in service jurisprudence, the same has not been brought within the definition of “retirement” under Regulation 2(y). Further, the words “retired” and “retirement” have some resemblance in their meanings, but not “resignation”. Regulation 3(1)(a) specifically used the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 14 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 expression “retirement” and the expression “resignation” has not been incorporated either in the definition clause or in Regulation 3(1)(a). We need not labour much on this issue, since the difference between these two concepts “resignation” and “retirement”, in the context of the same Banking Regulations of 1995, came up for consideration before this Court in Sanwar Mal [(2004) 4 SCC 412 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 699] , wherein this Court has distinguished the words “resignation” and “retirement” and held as follows:
(SCC p. 419, para 9) “9. … The words ‘resignation’ and ‘retirement’ carry different meanings in common parlance. An employee can resign at any point of time, even on the second day of his appointment but in the case of retirement he retires only after attaining the age of superannuation or in the case of voluntary retirement on completion of qualifying service. The effect of resignation and retirement to the extent that there is severance of employment … but in service jurisprudence both the expressions are understood differently. Under the Regulations, the expressions ‘resignation’ and ‘retirement’ have been employed for different purpose and carry different meanings. The pension scheme herein is based on actuarial calculation; it is a self-financing scheme, which does not depend upon budgetary support and consequently it constitutes a complete code by itself. The scheme essentially covers retirees as the credit balance to their provident fund https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 15 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 account is larger as compared to employees who resigned from service. Moreover, resignation brings about complete cessation of master-and-servant relationship whereas voluntary retirement maintains the relationship for the purposes of grant of retiral benefits, in view of the past service. Similarly, acceptance of resignation is dependent upon discretion of the employer whereas retirement is completion of service in terms of regulations/rules framed by the bank. Resignation can be tendered irrespective of the length of service whereas in the case of voluntary retirement, the employee has to complete qualifying service for retiral benefits.” (emphasis added)”
14. In the case of Senior Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others Vs. Shree Lal Meena reported in [(2019) 4 SCC 479], the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India defined distinction from retirement, voluntary retirement and inapplicability of the pension scheme to employees, who had resigned during the relevant period and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
“16. The moot point which, thus, arises for consideration is the effect of the retrospective application of these Rules in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 16 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 given factual scenario. Had the Pension Rules been only prospective in application, there is no doubt that Shree Lal Meena could not even have endeavoured to prefer a claim. In order to appreciate this aspect, the extent to which retrospectivity applies would have to be analysed, strictly on the basis of these Pension Rules, which are also contributory in their character.
23. In our view, the aforesaid principles squarely apply in the facts of the present case and the relevant legal principles is that voluntary retirement is a concept read into a condition of service, which has to be created by a statutory provision, while resignation is the unilateral determination of an employer-
employee relationship, whereby an employee cannot be a bonded labour.
24. In UCO Bank v. Sanwar Mal [UCO Bank v. Sanwar Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 412 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 699] , once again, in the case of a similar Pension Scheme, the observations were made as under : (SCC pp. 417-20, paras 6-7 & 9) “6. To sum up, the Pension Scheme embodied in the regulation is a self-supporting scheme. It is a code by itself. The Bank is a contributor to the pension fund. The Bank ensures availability of funds with the trustees to make due payments to the beneficiaries under the Regulations. The beneficiaries are employees covered by Regulation 3. It is in this light that one has to construe Regulation 22 quoted above. Regulation 22 deals with forfeiture of service. Regulation 22(1) states that resignation, dismissal, removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. In other words, the Pension Scheme disqualifies such dismissed employees and employees who have resigned from membership of the fund. The reason is not far to seek. In a self-financing scheme, a separate fund is earmarked as the Scheme is not based on budgetary support. It is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 17 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 essentially based on adequate contributions from the members of the fund. It is for this reason that under Regulation 11, every bank is required to cause an investigation to be made by an actuary into the financial condition of the fund from time to time and depending on the deficits, the Bank is required to make annual contributions to the fund. Regulation 12 deals with investment of the fund whereas Regulation 13 deals with payment out of the fund. In the case of retirement, voluntary or on superannuation, there is a nexus between retirement and retiral benefits under the Provident Fund Rules. Retirement is allowed only on completion of qualifying service which is not there in the case of resignation. When such a retiree opts for self-financing Pension Scheme, he brings in accumulated contribution earned by him after completing qualifying number of years of service under the Provident Fund Rules whereas a person who resigns may not have adequate credit balance to his provident fund account (i.e. bank's contribution) and, therefore, Regulation 3 does not cover employees who have resigned. Similarly, in the case of a dismissed employee, there may be forfeiture of his retiral benefits and consequently the framers of the Scheme have kept out the retirees (sic resigned) as well as dismissed employees vide Regulation 22. Further, the pension payable to the beneficiaries under the Scheme would depend on income accruing on investments and unless there is adequate corpus, the Scheme may not be workable and, therefore, Regulation 22 prescribes a disqualification to dismissed employees and employees who have resigned. Lastly, as stated above, the Scheme contemplated pension as the second retiral benefit in lieu of employer's contribution to contributory provident fund. Therefore, the said Scheme was not a continuation of the earlier scheme of provident fund. As a new scheme, it was entitled to keep out dismissed employees and employees who have resigned.
7. In the light of our above analysis of the scheme, we now proceed to deal with the arguments advanced by both the sides. It was inter alia urged on behalf of the appellant Bank that under Regulation 22, category of employees who have resigned from the service and who have been dismissed or removed from the service are not entitled to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis pension, that the Pension Scheme constituted a separate Page 18 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 fund to be regulated on self-financing principles, that prior to the introduction of the Pension Scheme, there was in existence a provident fund scheme and the present Scheme conferred a second retiral benefit to certain classes of employees who were entitled to become the members/beneficiaries of the fund, that the membership of the fund was not dependent on the qualifying service under the Pension Scheme, that looking to the financial implications, the Scheme framed mainly covered retirees because retirement presupposed larger number of years of service, that in the case of resignation, an employee can resign on the next day of his appointment whereas in the case of retirement, the employee is required to put in a certain number of years of service and consequently, the scheme was a separate code by itself, that the High Court has committed manifest error in decreeing the suit of the respondent inasmuch as it has not considered the relevant factors contemplated by the said Scheme and that the Pension Scheme was introduced in terms of the settlement dated 29-10-1993 between IBA and All-India Bank Employees' Association, which settlement also categorically rules out employees who have resigned or who have been dismissed/removed from the service.
***
9. We find merit in these appeals. The words “resignation” and “retirement” carry different meanings in common parlance. An employee can resign at any point of time, even on the second day of his appointment but in the case of retirement he retires only after attaining the age of superannuation or in the case of voluntary retirement on completion of qualifying service. The effect of resignation and retirement to the extent that there is severance of employment (sic is the same) but in service jurisprudence both the expressions are understood differently. Under the Regulations, the expressions “resignation” and “retirement” have been employed for different purpose and carry different meanings. The Pension Scheme herein is based on actuarial calculation; it is a self-financing scheme, which does not depend upon budgetary support and consequently it constitutes a complete code by itself. The Scheme essentially covers retirees as the credit balance to their provident fund https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 19 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 account is larger as compared to employees who resigned from service. Moreover, resignation brings about complete cessation of master-and-servant relationship whereas voluntary retirement maintains the relationship for the purposes of grant of retiral benefits, in view of the past service. Similarly, acceptance of resignation is dependent upon discretion of the employer whereas retirement is completion of service in terms of regulations/rules framed by the Bank. Resignation can be tendered irrespective of the length of service whereas in the case of voluntary retirement, the employee has to complete qualifying service for retiral benefits. Further, there are different yardsticks and criteria for submitting resignation vis-à-vis voluntary retirement and acceptance thereof. Since the Pension Regulations disqualify an employee, who has resigned, from claiming pension, the respondent cannot claim membership of the fund. In our view, Regulation 22 provides for disqualification of employees who have resigned from service and for those who have been dismissed or removed from service. Hence, we do not find any merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent that Regulation 22 makes an arbitrary and unreasonable classification repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution by keeping out such class of employees. The view we have taken is supported by the judgment of this Court in RBI v. Cecil Dennis Solomon [RBI v. Cecil Dennis Solomon, (2004) 9 SCC 461 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 737] . Before concluding we may state that Regulation 22 is not in the nature of penalty as alleged. It only disentitles an employee who has resigned from service from becoming a member of the fund. Such employees have received their retiral benefits earlier. The Pension Scheme, as stated above, only provides for a second retiral benefit. Hence there is no question of penalty being imposed on such employees as alleged. The Pension Scheme only provides for an avenue for investment to retirees. They are provided avenue to put in their savings and as a term or condition which is more in the nature of an eligibility criterion, the Scheme disentitles such category of employees as are out of it.”
36. In view of what we have discussed aforesaid, all three aspects stated by us are relevant and disentitle the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 20 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 appellant to any relief. We have already explained the difference between resignation and voluntary retirement. Mere categorisation by the appellant himself of his resignation as “premature retirement” is of no avail. The same principle discussed aforesaid, of forfeiture of service, would be applicable here and the appellant did not have the requisite age when he resigned even were the 1976 Scheme to be made applicable.
37. We may also find that the appellant remained silent for years together and that this Court, taking a particular view subsequently, in Sheelkumar Jain [Sheelkumar Jain v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 12 SCC 197] , would not entitle stale claims to be raised on this behalf, like that of the appellant. In fact the appellant slept over the matter for almost a little over two years even after the pronouncement of the judgment.”
15. The Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India (cited supra) considered the principles laid down in Sheelkumar Jain's case (cited supra).
16. The petitioner admittedly submitted his resignation, which was accepted by the respondent / Bank and therefore, he was treated as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 21 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 resigned employee for all purpose and the pension regulation was not extended to the resigned employees.
17. The petitioner is not falling under the category of retired employees, but falling under the category of resigned employees. As far as the resigned employees are concerned, the forfeiture Clause as contemplated under the Regulations should attract and thus, the petitioner is not eligible for pension scheme. The High Court while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot extend the scope of the pension scheme.
The scope of the pension scheme was extended by way of second opportunity only to the serving and the retired employees and not for the resigned employees.
18. This being the factum, the petitioner being a resigned employee, is not entitled for the pension scheme and therefore, this Court is not inclined to consider the relief.
19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
16.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 22 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order : Yes To Indian Overseas Bank, represented by the Chairman & Managing Director, Central Office, 762, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 23 of 24 W.P.No.15465 of 2015 S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni W.P.No.15465 of 2015 16.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 24 of 24