- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioners were appointed as clerks in the respondent - State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, which is a subsidiary bank of State Bank of India. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as clerk -cum -Godown keeper on 05.09.1969, and petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Agriculture Assistant on 15.10.1970. Both the petitioners were promoted on the post Officer, and were scheduled to superannuate on 31.07.2005 and 30.09.2005 respectively. Both the petitioners opted for voluntary retirement under the SBBJ Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SBBJVRS), which was circulated vide Circular dated 23.02.2001. The offer was open from 09.03.2001 to 22.03.2001. The offers of the petitioners were accepted and both of them retired from the service on 31.03.2001.
(3.) SOME of the employees of Punjab and Sindh Bank, Punjab National Bank, Bank of India, and Union Bank of India, who were the members of the Indian Banks Association, filed writ petitions in various High Courts claiming the benefit of increased qualifying service by a period not exceeding five years under Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995, applicable to such employees. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, Calcutta High Court and the Kerala High Court decided their cases, on which the banks filed 16 appeals in the Supreme Court. In Bank of India and Anr. v. K. Mohandas and Ors., : 2009(4) Supreme 538, the Supreme Court considered the validity of the judgments, by which increase of qualifying service by five years was allowed to those employees, who were covered by the Pension Regulations, 1995, and had opted for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000. The Supreme Court held as follows: - - "23. The principal question that falls for our determination is: whether the employees (having completed 20 years of service) of these banks (Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Punjab and Sind Bank, Union Bank of India and United Bank of India who had opted for voluntary retirement under VRS 2000 are entitled to addition of five years of notional service in calculating the length of service for the purpose of the said Scheme as per Regulation 29(5) of Pension Regulations, 1995? 51. On behalf of banks it was submitted that the employees, having taken benefits under the scheme (VRS 2000), are estopped from raising any issue that their entitlement to pension would not be covered by amended Regulation 28. It was suggested that the employees having taken benefit of the scheme cannot insist for pension under Regulation 29(5). O.P. Swarnakar was relied upon in this regard wherein it has been held that an employee, having taken the ex -gratia payment, or any other benefit under the scheme cannot be allowed to resile from the scheme. 52. Insofar as the present group of appeals is concerned, the employees are not seeking to resile from the Scheme. They are actually seeking enforcement of the clause in the Scheme that provides that the optees will be eligible for pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995. According to them, they are entitled to the benefits of Regulation 29(5). In our considered view, plea of estoppel is devoid of any substance; as a matter of fact it does not arise at all in the facts and circumstances of the case. 53. We hold, as it must be, that the employees who had completed 20 years of service and were pension optees and offered voluntary retirement under VRS 2000 and whose offers were accepted by the banks are entitled to addition of five years of notional service in calculating the length of service for the purposes of that Scheme as per Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. The contrary view expressed by some of the High Courts do not lay down the correct legal position." It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the cases of the petitioners, who were the members of the SBBJ(Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, are covered by the judgment in Bank of India and Anr. v. K. Mohandas and Ors.(supra), and that they were also entitled, but were not allowed the benefit of five years of qualifying service, despite completing 20 years of service before they had given options under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. It is submitted that restriction on other benefits under clause 7(iii) of the Manpower Planning and SBBJ Voluntary Retirement Scheme(SBBJVRS) vide Circular dated 23.02.2001, restricting applicability of Regulation 29(5) of the SBBJ Pension Regulations, 1995, is discriminatory as against the benefit of qualifying service of five years, provided to the employees of other banks, who were similarly situate without any distinguishing features.;