- (1.) The petitioner was appointed as a class IV employee with the respondent Bank on 13.12.1982, in the year 2000 Voluntary Retirement Scheme was floated by all the Nationalized Banks including the respondent Bank. As per the scheme all such employees who had put in fifteen years of service or attained the age of 40 years as on 31.01.2001 were eligible to seek voluntary retirement. The petitioner who had put in 1714 years of service also opted for the scheme in the year 2001 itself. He was permitted to retire voluntarily from service on 31.03.2001. The petitioner sought pension by relying upon the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001 as it contained a condition that those employees had put in 15 years of service or attained the age of 40 years on 31.03.2001 will be eligible to opt for voluntary retirement and they will be paid proportionate pension. The respondents have stated in their reply that the petitioner having opted for the voluntary retirement under the VRS, 2001 is not entitled to any pension under the Regulation 29 of SBBJ Pension Regulations 1995 as he had not completed the period of twenty years of service as provided therein.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) I am of the considered view that the matter in controversy is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. v. Kirpal Singh & Ors., 2014 5 SCC 189 wherein while considering the regulations applicable to employees of the Insurance Company it has been held that expression 'retirement' appearing in para 14 of the Pension Scheme, 1995 also applies to the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2004, and thus the employees who had opted for voluntary retirement under 2004 scheme would qualify for pension provided they had put in qualifying service of 10 years. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder; "(10) The only impediment, in adopting that interpretation lies in the use of the word 'retirement' in Para 14 of the Pension Scheme 1995. A restricted meaning to that expression may mean that Para 14 provides only for retirements in terms of Para (2)(t)(i) to (iii) which includes voluntary retirement in accordance with the provisions contained in Para 30 of the Pension Scheme. There is. however, no reason why the expression 'retirement' should receive such a restricted meaning especially when the context in which that expression is being examined by us would justify a more liberal interpretation; not only because the provision for payment of pension is a beneficial provision which ought to be interpreted more liberally to favour grant rather than refusal of the benefit but also because the Voluntary Retirement Scheme itself was intended to reduce surplus manpower by encouraging, if not alluring employees to opt for retirement by offering them benefits like ex-gratia payment and pension not otherwise admissible to the employees in the ordinary course. We are, therefore, inclined to hold, that the expression "Retirement" appearing in Para 14 of the Pension scheme 1995 should not only apply to cases which fall under Para 30 of the said scheme but also to a case falling under a Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2004. So interpreted, those opting for voluntary retirement under the said SVRS of 2004 would also qualify for payment of pension as they had put in the qualifying service of ten years stipulated under Para 14 of the Pension Scheme 1995." "(17) In the case at hand Para 2 of the Pension Scheme 1995 (extracted earlier) defines the expressions appearing in the scheme. But what is important is that such definitions are good only if the context also supports the meaning assigned to the expressions defined by the definition clause. The context in which the question whether pension is admissible to an employee who has opted for voluntary retirement under the 2004 Scheme assumes importance as Para 2 of the Scheme starts with the words "In this scheme, unless the context otherwise requires". There is nothing in the context of 1995 Scheme which would exclude its beneficial provisions from application to employees who have opted for voluntary retirement under the Special Scheme 2004 or vice versa. The term retirement must in the context of the two schemes, and the admissibility of pension to those retiring under the SVRS of 2004, include retirement not only under Para 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995 but also those retiring under the Special Scheme of 2004. That apart any provision for payment of pension is beneficial in nature which ought to receive a liberal interpretation so as to serve the object underlying not only of the Pension Scheme 1995 but also any special scheme under which employees have been given voluntary retirement upon the option to seek completion of the prescribed number of years of service and age.";