D.P. Singh, J.@mdashHeard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Mohan for the respondent-bank.
2. This petition is directed against an order dated 9.8.2001 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension and its communication dated 11.8.2001.
3. The admitted facts are that the petitioner after retiring from the Army joined respondent-Bank as a Security Guard on the strength of appointment letter dated 4.11.1986. The Board of Directors of the Bank framed a scheme known as ''Oriental Bank of Commerce Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2000'' and gave option for voluntary retirement under the said scheme to its employees. The petitioner opted under the said scheme through application dated 22.12.2000 which was duly accepted with effect from 15.1.2001. The petitioner was granted all other benefits under the said scheme excluding pension, which claim has been rejected.
4. The scheme provides for pension as under:
OTHER BENEFITS
An employee seeking voluntary retirement under the scheme will be eligible for the following benefits in addition to the ex-gratia amount as above:
(i) Gratuity as per Gratuity Act, 1972 or Gratuity payable under the Service regulations as the case may be as per existing rules. (ii) Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per OBC (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995
OR
Bank''s contribution towards PF, as per existing Rules.
(iii) Leave encashment as per existing rules.
5. A perusal of Clause (ii) shows that every such retiree under the scheme is entitled to benefit under Pension Regulation 1995. The Oriental Bank of Commerce (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995 were framed u/s 19(2)(f) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980, after previous sanction of the Central Government. Regulation 14 thereof provides that subject to the conditions in the regulations, employees who have rendered a minimum 10 years of service in the Bank would be deemed to have qualified for payment of pension. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order dated 9.8.2001 on the strength of a Bank circular dated 15.12.2000.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the circular dated 15.12.2000 is a mere proposal and cannot either override the provisions of the 1995 Regulations nor Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
7. As already noted hereinabove, the 1995 Regulations have been framed by the Board of Directors of the Bank in exercise of powers u/s 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 with the previous approval of the Central Government. The OBC Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2000 has been framed by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 9.11.2000. However, the circular dated 15.12.2000 has been issued by the Deputy General manager and states that the Central Government has permitted the Board of Directors to suitably amend Regulation 28 of the 1995 Regulations. Neither in the circular nor in the counter affidavit there is any recital that the qualifying services for the purpose of retirement has been suitably amended in pursuance thereof. There is also no averment that the said circular was issued with the prior approval of the Board of Directors. Therefore, it is apparent that neither the Regulations nor the Scheme having been amended in accordance to law, the circular dated 15.12.2000 cannot impinge upon the right of the petitioner for claiming pension.
8. However, the counsel for the Bank has urged that the petitioner cannot avail pension from the two sources because he is already receiving pension for his service rendered in the Army. No doubt, normally a person cannot claim pension from two different sources but that is subject to rules applicable. Regulation 24 of the Pension Regulations provides as under:
An employee who has rendered military service before appointment in the Bank shall continue to draw the military pension, if any, and military service rendered by the employees shall not count as qualifying service for pension.
9. A perusal thereof shows that no embargo has been placed on an incumbent from receiving military pension though for the purposes of pension under these Regulations, the service rendered in the Army would not be counted for qualifying service under these Regulations. In a way, Regulation 24 is worded such that it allows the incumbent to receive pension from both the sources. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Bank cannot be accepted.
10. No other point has been urged.
11. For the reasons above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 9.8.2001 is hereby quashed.
12. Consequently the petitioner is entitled to arrears of pension and also payment of regular pension. The arrears may be paid within a period of two months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to 6% interest per annum from the date it became due till the date it is actually paid. No order as to cost.
