- (1.)All these appeals have been preferred by the State Bank of Patiala (hereinafter referred to as "Bank")against different judgments and orders passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh but since common issues were involved they were heard together and disposed of by the impugned common judgment.
(2.)A number of employees who were allowed to retire from the Bank pursuant to scheme called State Bank of Patiala Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000(herein after referred to as the "Scheme") introduced by Circular dated 20th January, 2001, and had completed more than 19 and 1/2 years of service, in whose favour pension was not released by the Bank in accordance with the State Bank of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations, 1995"). They moved before the High Court for direction to the Bank and its authorities to release pension in their favour in accordance with the Scheme. By one of the judgments dated 22nd October, 2008, learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions preferred by some of the aggrieved employees (respondents) in C.A. No.172 of 2010 and directed to pay pension in their favour. Against the said order the Bank preferred LPA No.312 of 2008 before the Division Bench, which by the impugned judgment dated 9th January, 2009 dismissed the LPA and affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The said impugned judgment dated 9th January, 2009 passed in LPA No.312 of 2008 is under challenge in C.A.No.172 of 2010.
Some other similarly situated employees who had completed more than 19 and 1/2 years of service and retired persons to Voluntary Retirement Scheme also preferred similar writ petitions which were allowed. Against the respective judgments Bank filed different LPAs which were also dismissed by different orders in view of the judgment dated 9th January, 2009. Against the judgments which have followed the earlier decision, the rest of the civil appeals have been preferred by the Bank.

(3.)The High Court by the impugned judgment referring to earlier Division Bench decision of the High Court in Dharam Pal Singh v. Punjab National Bank,2008 1 PunLR 745 held that the pension was payable under Regulation 28 and that Regulation 29 will not apply. The Division Bench of the High Court further held as follows:
"12. A perusal of the Regulation 28 shows that on attaining the age of superannuation specified in Regulations or settlements pension is payable. The age of superannuation has been laid down in Service Regulations which is said to be 60 years now and earlier it was 58 years. But under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which according to the writ petitioners will be at par with Settlement, the requirement is 15 years of service or 40 years of age, which admittedly the writ petitioners had. Under Regulation 32 of the pension is payable on premature retirement on account of orders of the Bank if the employee was otherwise entitled to pension/superannuation on that day. Read with Regulations 14 and 28, the said age is 10 years and if read with the Scheme, it is 15 years of age or 40 years of service and in either case the employees were covered by the pension scheme. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Regulation 29 relating to voluntary retirement was not applicable. Thus, contention on behalf of the Bank that Regulation 29 applied and therefore, pension payable only after 20 years service cannot be accepted."

The view taken by the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench and the LPA was dismissed.