V.S.Sirpurkar, CJ. - (1.) An order-cum-Judgment by the learned single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition at the motion hearing stage itself is in challenge in this appe:al. In that, the learned Judge has directed the original respondent, Punjab National Bank (hereinafter called the 'Bank' for short) to release the retirement benefits in terms of the Pension Scheme opted by the petitioner at the time of the submission of the proposal for voluntary retirement. The Bank was directed to comply with the order within one month failing which an interest at the rate of 18% per annum an the amount would be payable to the petitioners. Following factual mattrix will help us understand the controversy involved. Contention in Writ Petition
(2.) The respondents Nos.l to 8 herein, being the retired Bank Officers working in the Punjab National Bank, along with their Representative Association, respondent No.9, filed this writ petition praying, inter alia, for a writ of mandamus commanding; the Banks Authority to release the pensionary benefits in favour of the eight petitioners therein and the concerned members of the petitioner No.9 Association on the basis of Regulation 29(5) of Pension Regulations applicable to the Bank. In addition to that, the petitioners also claimed the differential amount on account of commutation pension as also the arrears of the pension on the basis of the calculations made in terms of Regulation 29(5). Interest of 21% on the arrears was also prayed for. Shortly stated, the case of the petitioners was that the petitioners Nos.l to 8 and the other concerned members of the Association, petitioner No.9, were working in the different branches and had put in substantial number of years of service. While so working, they received an offer of a Scheme called, PNB Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 on 29.9.2000. The Scheme was to remain in operation on 1.11.2000 to 30.11.2000 and under the said Scheme, all permanent and full time employees of the Bank were eligible to seek voluntary retirement provided they fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In that Scheme, only the oflicers who had put in minimum 15 years of service or who were 40 years of age, were liable to take part. The employees seeking the voluntary retirement under the Scheme were to be entitled to ex-gratia amount mentioned in paragraph 3.3 of the offer or the Scheme. It was as under: "3.3. Amount of Ex-Gratia (Para 6 of the Scheme) An employee seeking voluntary retirement under the scheme will be entitled to the ex-gratia amount mentioned in para (a) or (b), whichever is less: a) 60 days salary (pay plus stagnation increments plus special pay plus clearness relief) for each completed year of service; b) Salary for the number of months service left." 2.1. Clause 3.5 of the Scheme was as under: "3.5. Other Benefits (Para 7 of the Scheme) An employee seeking voluntary retirement under the schme will be eligible for the following benefits in addition to the ex-gratia amount mentioned para O of the scheme. i) Gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or Gratuity payable under the Service Rules as the case may be as per existing rules; ii) a) Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per PNB (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. OR b) Bank's contribution towards PF as per existing rules, iii) Leave encashment as per exiJsting rules."
(3.) The petitioners, therefore, redied on clause 3.5(ii) and claimed in the writ petition that they were entitled to pension as per the PNB (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. The petitioners then pointed out that they all opted for the voluntary retirement and their offer was accepted by the Bank. Under the aforementioned clause 3.5(ii), they were entitled to the pension under the PNB Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. Accordingly, their pension was liable to be calculated taking into account and on the basis of Regulation 29(5) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' Regulations. They pointed out that it was on this basis that they accepted the scheme and while calculating their pension as per the Pension Scheme, Regulation (5) could not have been ignored. The Bank, however, did not calculate the pension on the basis of Regulation 29 generally and more particularly, sub-regulation(5) thereof. Regulation 29 is under chapter V, which pertains to 'Classes of Pension'. Regulation 29 pertains to 'Pension on Voluntary Retirement'. The whole Regulation 29 runs as under: "29 Pension on Voluntary Retirement 1) On or after the 1st day 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 in writing to the appointing 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 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 employees 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 fram 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.";