S.P. Talukdar, J. - (1.) The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th July, 2004 passed by the Learned Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 377 of 2002.
(2.) Grievances of the appellant as ventilated before this Court, may briefly be stated as follows : Respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 by filing a writ application alleged that though they opted for voluntary retirement, the pension benefits were not given to them as per their legal entitlement. They were employees of United Bank of India. In response to a Notification dated 23rd December, 2000, the said writ petitioners opted for voluntary retirement in terms of the scheme dated 23.12.2000. They submitted necessary applications on 01.01.2001 and the bank accepted their offers. They were released on 22.09.2001. United Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 was introduced in 1995. Regulation 29 provided for pension on voluntary retirement. Subregulation (5) of Regulation 29 provided that the qualifying service of an employee seeking voluntary retirement under the Regulations would 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. The writ petitioners had residual service for a period of ten years four months nine days; two years four months nine days; three years four months nine days and four years eleven months nine days respectively before attaining the age of superannuation wen they had opted for voluntary retirement. They received their respective Pension Payment Orders. The net period of qualifying service of the writ petitioners as per Pension Payment Orders was shown as thirty years, thirty-two years, thirty-one years and twenty-three years respectively. They submitted separate representations in November, 2001 contending therein that the notional service for maximum period of five years as per Regulation 29(5) of the said Regulations of 1995 had not been considered in calculating of the qualifying service for the basic pension of the writ petitioners. They sought for review of the pension entitlement. The writ petitioners thus raised objection against the Bank's granting them benefits of pension only for their actual lengths of service. They claimed benefit of appropriate increase in their length of service in terms of paragraph 6(ii) of the scheme, read with Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. Denial of such benefit compelled them to file the writ application.
(3.) It was contested by the Bank authorities by filing objection to which the petitioners gave a reply.;