G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. - (1.) APPLICATION has been filed to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the judgment dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure P4), which has been further upheld in Letters Patent Appeal No. 312 of 2008 decided on 9.1.2009 (Annexure P5) and by the Apex Court vide judgment dated 7.7.2014 (Annexure P6).
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the communication dated 12.3.2008 (Annexure P3) vide which the claim for grant of pension of the petitioner has been rejected. Perusal of communication dated 12.3.2008 (Annexure P3) would go on to show that the State Bank of Patiala had rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that his service was less than 20 years and Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulation, 1995 would not be applicable to those who sought voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
(3.) THE petitioner has, admittedly, 14 years 2 months service to her credit and had taken voluntary retirement under the State Bank of Patiala Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 20.1.2001 and was relieved on 31.3.2001. The petition was also based upon the said judgment passed in a bunch of cases of the same bank and the lead case of that bunch was Civil Writ Petition No. 16527 of 2001 titled as "Prem Singh Hooda v. State Bank of Patiala and Others, decided on 22.10.2008 (Annexure P4). The learned Single Judge, in the said case, had placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dharam Pal Singh v. Punjab National Bank and Others 2008(1) Punjab Law Reporter 745 and granted the benefit of pension to the employees, who had taken voluntary retirement and who had more than ten years of service by holding that the qualifying service under the Regulations was ten years.;