Summary
Eligibility to leave service under the Central Bank’s 2001 voluntary retirement scheme did not itself confer pension eligibility. The employee qualified for the scheme by age but had only eleven years’ service, short of the fifteen years required for pension under the applicable regulations. The general ten-year qualifying-service provision remained subject to the other regulatory conditions. The pension award was therefore reversed despite the long pendency of the employee’s claim.
Issues
- Whether eligibility for voluntary retirement at age forty conferred pension despite fewer than fifteen years’ service.
- Whether the ten-year qualifying-service provision independently supplied entitlement.
Provisions considered
- Clauses 4 and 6(ii), Central Bank of India Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001Distinguished eligibility to apply for voluntary retirement from entitlement to pension, which remained governed by the Pension Regulations. (¶ 7–9)
- Regulations 2(y), 14 and 28, Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995The general qualifying-service rule was subject to other conditions; scheme retirement required the applicable fifteen-year minimum rather than merely ten years’ service. (¶ 9–11)
Held
- The scheme permitted application after fifteen years’ service or attainment of forty years, but its pension clause incorporated the Pension Regulations. The alternative age criterion did not eliminate the independent pension conditions. (¶ 7–11)
- Regulation 14 expressly operated subject to the remaining regulations. The employee’s eleven years did not satisfy the provision governing pension on retirement under a special voluntary retirement scheme; the pre-scheme circular had also explained the fifteen-year requirement. (¶ 10–11)
- Ganpat Singh Deora directly concerned materially similar bank regulations and was followed. K. Mohandas concerned additional service weightage for employees with twenty years’ service, and Kirpal Singh concerned a different insurance scheme; neither required a contrary conclusion or larger-Bench reference. (¶ 12–19)
- Eighteen years spent awaiting pension could not justify an individual exception to the governing statutory framework. (¶ 20)
Result
Bank’s appeal allowed; High Court judgments set aside and employee’s writ petition dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.