Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P6 dated 17.03.2004 whereby the claim of the petitioner for granting benefit of additional 5 years for the purposes of pension in terms of Regulation 29(5) of UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'Pension Regulation') was declined.
(2.) THE respondent -bank framed a Voluntary Retirement Scheme titled as UCO Bank Employees' Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 (hereinafter referred as 'the Scheme'). The same was circulated vide circular dated 16.11.2000. The employees could opt for voluntary retirement under the Scheme between 01.01.2001 to 31.01.2001 i.e. the validity period. The petitioners have sought voluntary retirement under the aforesaid Scheme during the validity period i.e. 01.01.2001 to 31.01.2001. Having been granted voluntary retirement, the petitioner submitted representation for grant of additional 5 years for the purposes of pension in terms of Regulation 29(5) which had been declined by the order impugned in the present writ petition. Learned Counsel relies upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 6406 of 2006 Baldev Singh v. Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors. decided on 10.01.2007, wherein the benefit of 5 years have been ordered to be granted to the personnel of the Punjab and Sind Bank. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that regulation 29(5) as well as Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulation is pari materia with the Regulations of Punjab and Sind Bank (Officers) Services Regulations, 1982 and, therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioners are entitled benefit of additional 5 years for the purposes of pension.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents have vehemently argued that Regulation 28 was amended and circulated prior to the validity of the Scheme i.e. of 22.12.2000 vide Annexure P4. Therefore, the judgment in Baldev Singh's case is clearly distinguishable. Still further, it is argued that Regulation 29 is a Regulation applicable to the officers seeking voluntary retirement in normal course and not to officers, who have sought voluntary retirement under the Scheme, as in the present case. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Though the Regulation 28 was amended prior to the validity of the Scheme but that amendment does not effect the claim of the petitioner for pension in terms of 29(5) of the Regulations. The amendment in Regulation 28 is insertion of a proviso granting benefit of pension after completion of 15 years of service. The said condition is not material for the Officers like the petitioners, who have sought retirement under the Scheme. Regulation 29(5) of Punjab and Sind Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1982 is pari materia with the Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulation. This Court in respect of the pari materia provisions has extended the benefit of 5 years for the purposes of pension. Therefore, the said benefit is to be granted to the officers claiming voluntary retirement under the Scheme as well. Therefore, in view the said judgment, we allow the present writ petition in the same terms as in Baldev Singh's case (supra).;