(Delivered by S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J.) In all these cases, since common question of law is involved and covered by a decision of the Supreme Court, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The writ petitions have been filed by association of employees of different nationalised banks (Indian Bank, Punjab National Bank, Indian Overseas Bank) and individuals. Those employees of nationalised banks, who opted for voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "VRS 2000"), having denied the benefit of Regulation 29(5) of the Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995 or equivalent regulation, preferred these writ petitions with almost similar prayer to get the entire benefit of such Regulation.
3. Regulation 29 of PNB (Employees) Pension Regulation Scheme, 1995 relates to pension on voluntary retirement. Under Regulation 29(5), the qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not, in any case, exceed thirty three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation. Similar Regulation has been framed by other Banks. Therefore, in normal course, an employee, who is entitled to get pension on voluntary retirement, is entitled under Regulation 29(5) to get advantage of further period of five years in total, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered does not exceed 33 years.
4. Pursuant to VRS 2000, a number of employees, including members of the petitioner-Association, applied for voluntary retirement and were granted benefit under that Scheme. However, they were denied the benefit of Regulation 29(5) or equivalent Regulation and thereby, those who had less than 33 years of qualifying service, five years period or maximum upto five years had not been counted in their service.
5. A number of writ petitions were filed before this Court and other High Courts by the employees of different nationalised Banks against their respective Bank for granting the benefit of additional five years of service under Regulation 29(5). This was opposed by all the Banks on the ground that Regulation 29 is applicable for those who obtain voluntary retirement under Regulation and not applicable to those who have sought for voluntary retirement under VRS 2000. Different High Courts passed contrary decisions. In certain cases, some of the High Courts, while held that those who obtain voluntary retirement under VRS 2000 are entitled to the benefit under Regulation 29(5) or equivalent Regulation, some other High Courts opined that such employees are not entitled to get the benefit under Regulation 29(5) or equivalent Regulation.
6. Against those judgments, when different Banks and individuals moved before the Supreme Court, all the cases were heard together. In Bank of India v. K.Mohandas [2009 (2) CTC 759], having noticed the rival contentions, the Supreme Court observed and held as follows:
"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."
7. The other question fell for consideration was whether the concerned employees were entitled to interest on unpaid pension. Having heard the parties, the question was decided in negative against the employees, as evident from paragraph 55 and quoted hereunder:
"Although it has been held by us that the subject employees are entitled to the weightage in terms of Regulation 29(5) of Pension Regulations, 1995, but we are satisfied that any award of interest on unpaid pension would not be in the interest of justice. It is so because different High Courts did not have unanimous judicial opinion on the issue. Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Division bench of the Kerala High Court upheld the contention of the employees with regard to the applicability of Regulation 29(5) to the optees who had completed 20 years of service while the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and a single Judge of the Kerala High Court took exactly an opposite view. The stance of the Banks, although found not meritorious, cannot be said to be totally frivolous. We, accordingly, hold that the subject employees are not entitled to interest on unpaid pension."
8. So far as the present case of the petitioners is concerned, the question involved is being covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the Bank of India case (supra) and the same is also accepted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union and different Banks.
9. In the facts and circumstances, while we hold that the members of petitioners and other employees, who have opted voluntary retirement pursuant to VRS 2000 from any of the respondent Bank and have completed 20 years of service and who are pension optees, are entitled to addition of five years of notional service in calculating the length of service for the purpose of the Scheme as per Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulation, 1995 or equivalent Regulation, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not, in any case, exceed thirty three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation.
10. The respective Bank shall re-calculate within one month the pension payable to the concerned employees, including those who are members of the petitioner Association, members of the intervener association and other equivalent employees who obtained voluntary retirement under VRS 2000, and pay the benefits as per the aforesaid finding, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The employees shall not be entitled to interest on unpaid pension. However, if the amount is not paid within the aforesaid period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, then, in such case, the employees can claim interest and the Bank shall pay such dues with interest at the rate of 8% from the date of this judgment till the amount is paid.
The writ petitions are allowed. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WAMP No.6350 of 2003 is dismissed and WPMP No.10469 of 2004 is closed.
kpl