TRYAMBAK Vs. THE BANK OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition, the petitioners have made the following prayers:

(2.) THE petitioner was working as Record Keeper with the respondent -Bank of Maharashtra from 15.10.1956 till 27.01.1991 i.e. for about 34 years 3 months and 12 days. He suffered severe paralytic attack on 27.01.1991, thereby permanently incapacitating him. He, therefore, made an application on 17.08.1992 to his employer Bank of Maharashtra, requesting for voluntary retirement on the ground of his incapacity to work. In response, the employer on 25.01.1993 asked him to appear before the Medical Board and accordingly, he appeared on 10.03.1993. The Medical board certified that he was unfit to render any service in view of his disablement. Nothing was heard on his application dated 17.08.1992 but on 20.12.1995, the employer asked the petitioner to fill up the option form under the Bank of Maharashtra (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995, which regulation was made effective on 20.09.1995 for the purpose of grant of pension. The petitioner accordingly filled up the option form and submitted the same. On 17.10.1996, however, he received a communication with reference to his application for voluntary retirement from the employer stating therein that the petitioner would not be entitled to pension since the scheme does not apply to those who have resigned from service and in the near future, if fresh instructions are received, his request for pension could be considered. The petitioner was thus denied the relief in entirety by the Bank. During the pendency of the petition, the original petitioner has expired and, therefore, his legal representatives have been brought on record. On 19.06.1998, the petitioner applied to Lok Ayukta, Mumbai and submitted that under clause (i) of the Regulation No. 23 of the Regulation of 1995, retirement could include voluntary retirement provided, 20 years qualifying service is rendered. In response to the writ petition, the employer -Bank of Maharashtra has appeared and filed the submissions opposing the petition. The sum and substance of the defence is that the petitioner had resigned from service since the word "resignation" has been used in the application dated 17.08.1992 and, therefore, he could not be said to have retired voluntarily. Consequently, he is not entitled to pension since his retirement cannot be read as per Regulation 29, therefore, the Bank had communicated to him its decision on 17.10.1996 that he had resigned from service and was not entitled to any pensionary benefits. The respondent -employer, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) MR . Ghare, learned counsel for the respondents -Bank, vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the Regulation of 1995 did not apply in the case of the petitioner because he became disabled in the year 1991 itself and had resigned from service. There is no provision for grant of pension to the employees who have resigned from service and, therefore, the employer was right in refusing to grant any pension, which was accordingly communicated to him on 17.10.1996. The petitioner having resigned, the question of consideration of his case as voluntary retirement for the purpose of Invalid Pension also did not arise. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.