@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Chandru, J.@mdashThe petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking to quash the impugned order dated 24.10.2001 and for directing the respondents to grant pensionary benefits on their going on voluntary retirement under the Punjab National Bank Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 (for short "PNBVRS). Under the impugned order dated 24.10.2001, the respondent Bank advised the petitioners that they must have put in minimum service of 15 years for the purpose of getting pension and that since they have not put in 15 years of service, they are not eligible for getting pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995 and accordingly, rejected the cases of the petitioners.
2. The respondent Bank has filed a counter affidavit stating that that the petitioners had gone on Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short, "VRS") and under Clause 7 of the Scheme, an employee seeking for voluntary retirement will be eligible for the other benefits in addition to the ex-gratia amount, namely, the gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act and pension in terms of Punjab National Bank (Employees'') Pension Regulations, 1995 or Bank''s contribution towards Provident Fund. Apart from this, they will be entitled to get leave encashment. For the purpose of getting pension under the Punjab National Bank Employees'' Pension Regulations, one should have put in 15 years of service or must have completed 40 years of age, but under the PNBVRS, the employees with 15 years of service alone are eligible to seek voluntary retirement under the scheme and there is no provision under the Pension Regulations to make them eligible for pension. The respondent Bank contacted the Indian Bank Association (for short, "IBA") and the said IBA took up the matter with the Government of India. Under the advise tendered by them, the respondent Bank amended Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulations with the approval of the Board of Directors in exercise of its statutory powers u/s 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Transfer) of Undertakings Act, 1970.
3. In respect of the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 13207 of 2002, viz., Rani Jerome, it was stated that she had undergone 1092 days of leave on loss of pay and the said period was deducted from service for the purpose of calculating her qualifying service which was arrived at 14 years, 11 months and 12 days, i.e., admittedly less than 15 years, thereby making her ineligible for the pension under the Pension Scheme together with voluntary retirement benefits. In the same way, the qualifying service of the petitioner in W.P. No. 13206 of 2002 was calculated on the basis of taking his date of relief as 16.12.2000 and it was arrived as if he had put in only 14 years, 11 months and 28 days thereby making him ineligible for pension.
4. We have heard Mrs. Sujatha Rangarajan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S. Jayaraman, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank and have perused the records.
5. Mrs. Sujatha Rangarajan, the counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in respect of an employee of Indian Bank, this Court allowed a writ petition with similar prayer in W.P. No. 14744 of 2003 by order dated 4.7.2005 and the relevant passage in paragraph 22 of the said order is extracted below:
When the above consistent ratio of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as well as that of the English cases are applied to the case on hand, we have no hesitation in holding that the interpretation made by us in the earlier paragraphs of the order would alone achieve the object and purport of the Regulation especially when the petitioner had put in as many as 14 years, 9 months and 17 days and by construing his last spell of employment of 9 months and 17 days as one full year, he would be well within his rights to claim pension as provided under the amended Regulation 28 of the Indian Bank Voluntary Employees'' Pension Regulations, 1995. Therefore, the contrary stand of the respondent in the impugned order dated 22.3.2003 is liable to be set aside.
6. However, the said case relates to the Indian Bank and the Indian Bank Employees'' Pension Scheme and the qualifying service is provided under Regulation 14 which is as follows:
14. Qualifying Service � Subject to the other conditions contained in these regulations, an employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service in the Bank on the date of his retirement or the date on which he is deemed to have retired shall qualify for pension.
Further, as to how a broken period of service can be calculated is also mentioned under Regulation 18 of the Regulations, which is as follows:
18. Broken period of service of less than one year � If the period of service of an employee includes broken period of service less than one year, then if such Broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year and if such broken period is six months or less it shall be ignored.
7. Mr. S. Jayaraman, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank produced before us the Statutory Regulations relating to the writ petitioner Bank wherein no such discretion is found to have been granted to the Bank in case an employee falls short of the required minimum service for getting pension. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment has no application to the case of the petitioners.
8. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in this case, the Court should come to the rescue by directing the Bank to pay the pension amount to the petitioners. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in
An offer for voluntary retirement in terms of a scheme, when accepted, leads to a concluded contract between the employer and the employee. In terms of such a scheme, an employe has an option either to accept or not to opt therefor. The scheme is purely voluntary, in terms whereof the tenure of service is curtailed, which is permissible in law. Such a scheme is ordinarily floated with a purpose of downsizing the employees. It is beneficial both to the employees as well as to the employer. Such a scheme is issued for effective functioning of the industrial undertakings. Although the Company is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, the terms and conditions of service would be governed by the contract of employment. Thus, unless the terms and conditions of such a contract are governed by a statute or statutory rules, the provisions of the Contract Act would be applicable both at the formulation of the contract as also the determination thereof. By reason of such a scheme only is an invitation of offer floated. When pursuant to or in furtherance of such a Voluntary Retirement Scheme an employee opts therefor, he makes an offer which upon acceptance by the employer gives rise to a contract. Thus, as the matter relating to voluntary retirement is not governed by any statute, the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872, therefore, would be applicable too.
9. The petitioners, before tendering their offer for opting to go on VRS, ought to have verified whether they are eligible for pension under the statutory pension scheme. Once they have given an option to go on VRS, they cannot turn back and say that they are eligible for pension whether they put in minimum qualifying service or not. If they had made such a discovery before offering their option to go on VRS, they would have had no grievance about the non-payment of pension. The petitioners cannot have both ways.
10. In the light of the above, we do not find any merits in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The writ petitions fail and the same shall stand dismissed. However, the parties are allowed to bear their own costs.
