Sabina, J. - (1.) VIDE this order, above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as controversy involved in both the cases is the same. CWP No. 23102 of 2011 has been filed by Oriental Bank Retired Officers Association whereas, CWP No. 7395 of 2012 has been filed by Narender Paul Rana in his individual, capacity. The grievance of the petitioners is that members of the Union had although, not opted for pension scheme in the year 1995 and had thereafter, sought voluntary retirement but they were not being considered eligible to exercise the option to join the pension scheme as per the joint note dated 27.04.2010 and 23.08.2010 (Annexure P -1 and Annexure P -2 respectively).
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the members of the Association were working with the Oriental Bank of Commerce in officer cadre. In the year 1995, pension scheme was introduced by the Bank but the aggrieved members of the Association had not opted for the scheme. However, a joint note was agreed by the management of the banks and the Associations of the bank officers on 27.04.2010 (Annexure P -1) whereby a second chance was given to the employees of the Bank to opt for pension scheme. As per Annexure P -2, all those employees who were in service of the Bank prior to 29.09.1995 and had retired after that date and prior to 27.04.2010 could exercise an option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer to become member of the pension fund. The claim of the employees of the bank to allow them to opt in terms of Annexure P -2 was declined on the ground they had sought voluntary retirement prior to the passing of Annexures P -1 and P -2. Learned counsel has further submitted that it appears that due to inadvertence, petitioners had made reference to the word "resignation" in their letters whereas, in fact they had sought voluntary retirement. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Sheelkumar Jain v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. : 2011 (12) SCC 197. Learned counsel for the respondent -Bank, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that in pursuance to the circular dated 13.12.2012 Annexure R -2/1 (CWP No. 23102 of 2011), Naresh Bhatia, S.S. Wason, Ashok Dhingra, Om Parkash Gupta, V.S. Pawar, Narinder Kumar Kanwar and D.K. Bhasin had applied for pension and they were allowed pension by the bank as they were found eligible for the same. So far as the employees who had resigned or had been dismissed/removed/terminated from the service of the Bank were not entitled for pension in terms of Regulation 22(1) of the Oriental Bank of Commerce (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. G.S. Popli, Sudesh Chutani, Chander Mohan and Ravinder Kumar Bhatia and Narender Paul Rana were not eligible for pension as they had not sought voluntary retirement but G.S. Popli, Sudesh Chutani and Narender Paul Rana had resigned from the service of the Bank whereas, Ravinder Kumar Bhatia had been removed from service vide order dated 01.06.2005. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in M.R. Prabhakaran and others v. Canara Bank and others : (2012) 9 SCC 671 wherein it was held as under: - - "The learned counsel appearing for the appellants have placed heavy reliance on Sheelkumar Jain and submitted that in the light of that judgment, the decision rendered in Sanwar Mal requires reconsideration. We find it difficult to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. We may point out that in Sheelkumar Jain this Court was dealing with an insurance scheme and not the pension scheme., which is applicable in the banking sector. The provisions of both the scheme and the Regulations are not in pari materia. In Sheelkumar Jain case, while referring to Para 5, this Court came to the conclusion that the same does not make distinction between "resignation" and "voluntary retirement" and it only provides that an employee who wants to leave or discontinue his service amounts, to "resignation" or "voluntary retirement". Whereas, Regulation 20 (2) of the Canara Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 applicable to banks, had specifically referred to the words "resignation" unlike para 5 of the Insurance Rules. Further, it is also to be noted that, in that judgment, this Court in para 30 held that the Court will have to construe the statutory provisions in each case to find out whether the termination of service of an employee was a termination by way of resignation or a termination by way of voluntary retirement. The appellants, when tendered their letters of resignation, were governed by the 1979 Regulations. Regulation 20(2) of the 1979 Regulations dealt with resignation from service and they tendered their resignation in the light of that provision. We are of the view that the appellants have failed to show any preexisting rights in their favour either in the statutory settlement/joint note dated 29.10.1993 or under the 1995 Regulations. The appellants had resigned from service prior to 1 -11 -1993 and, therefore, were not covered by the statutory settlement, joint note dated 29 -10 -1993 and the 1995 Regulations. They could not establish any preexisting legal, statutory or fundamental rights in their favour to claim the benefit of the 1995 Regulations. Consequently, the reliance placed by the appellants either on Regulation 29 or Regulation 22 in support of their contentions, cannot be accepted, since they are not covered by the scheme of pension introduced by the banks with effect from 1 -11 -1993."
(3.) THUS , in the present case, the passing of Annexures P -1 and P -2 are not in dispute. Vide Annexure P -1, meetings of the Indian Bank Association representing the Management of Banks and representatives of the Officers Association on salary revision and other issues concerning service conditions of the officers of the Banks were held. Oh different issues, decisions were taken vide Annexure P -1 dated 27.04.2010 and thereafter, bi -partite settlement with Workmen Union and joint note with Officers Association was passed on 23.08.2010 (Annexure P -2).;