PRAKASH TATIA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who was initially appointed as Field Inspector in Reserve Bank of India, subsequently, after establishment of National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development (for short the NABARD) was given option to opt for services of the NABARD. Upon petitioner's option, the petitioner's services were transferred to the NABARD finally. The service of the petitioner was governed by the Rules called National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Staff) Rules, 1982. (here in after referred as Rules of 1982) These Rules came into force on 12.12.1982. The Rule 19(1) provides the age of superannuation. The petitioner was employee of Group -A, therefore, his age of superannuation is on completion of 58 years. As per Sub -Clause (a) of Sub -Rule (4) of Rule 19, at the time of retirement, the employees had two options: (a) Either employees may take benefit of leave subject to maximum of six months in respect of ordinary leave earned during these Rules of 1982 and in that case, it is provided that the employee will be deemed to have retired from services at the expiry of the leave. Or, (b) Employees can get lump sum amount which would be equivalent to pay as defined in Rule 3(j) of the Rules. The limit for this lump sum amount is also equivalent to the unavailed ordinary leave up to period of six months plus dearness allowance.
(2.) THE petitioner who attained the age of superannuation on 16.7.1985 was supposed to retire on the said date but in view of Rule 19(1), the petitioner was entitled to work till the last date of the month in which he attained the age of 58 years, therefore, date of superannuation of the petitioner comes to 31.7.1985. The petitioner took the benefit under Clause (a) of Sub -Rule (4) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1982 of availing leave of six months which was grante to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, as per Sub -Clause (1) of Sub -Rule (4) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1982, he is deemed to be in service for further period of six months from 31.7.1985. Therefore, according to the petitioner since the petitioner was in ordinary course of employment could not have been retired on 31.7.1985, and was retired by the respondent on 31.1.1986. At the time of retirement of the petitioner there was no pension scheme available for the employees like the petitioner but in the year 1993, pension regulations known as National Bank for Agriculture And Rural Development Pension Regulations, 1993, (Here in after referred as Pension Regulations, 1993) were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 1 read with Clause (j) of Sub -section (2) of Section 60 of the NABARD Act, 1981. By these regulations, scheme for pension was introduced for the (1) employees who join the National Banks Service on or after 1.11.1993, (2) employees who were in the service of National Bank as on 31.10.1993 except those employees, who within the prescribed period by the National Bank exercise an option in writing not to be governed by these regulations and (3) employees who were in service on 1.1.1986 (excluding those on leave preparatory to retirement) and had retired before 1.11.1993 provided they exercised option to be governed by these regulations and refund the contribution to Provident Fund including interests received by them from the National Bank together with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of withdrawal till the date of repayment.
(3.) IN view of the introduction of Pension Regulation, 1993, the employees who were in service on 1.11.1986 but retired before 1.11.1993 are entitled to benefit of option of pension. The case of the petitioner is peculiar in nature because of the reason that the as per the date of birth of the petitioner, petitioner was to retire on 31.7.1985 but, since the petitioner availed the benefit of Sub -Clause (a) of Sub -Rule (4) of Rule 19 of Rules of 1982 he finally retired after six months from the date of superannuation which is 31.1.1986. If the petitioner is treated in service till 31.1.1986 as claimed by the petitioner then the petitioner is entitled for the benefit available under Pension Regulation, 1993. If the petitioner is not treated as in service employee as on 1.1.1986 then the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the pension under Regulation of 1993. Another hurdle in the way of the petitioner is exclusion clause made in the Sub -Clause (3) of Regulation 3. The Sub -Clause (3) of Regulation 3 of Chapter II of Pension Regulations, 1993, specifically excludes the employees who proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement. Therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved of the above exclusion clause made in the Sub -Clause (3) of Regulation 3 and also challenged the part of the Regulation 22 wherein it is provided that leave preparatory to retirement shall not count as qualifying service. The petitioner, therefore, sought relief of grant of pension from the respondents from 1.1.1986 and also challenged the validity of '(excluding those on leave preparatory to retirement)' occurring in Sub -Clause (3), and the words 'Leave preparatory to retirement shall not count as qualifying service.' which is provided in Regulation 22 Pension Regulations, 1993.;