Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19066 of 2019 Petitioner :- Poonam Srivastava Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gautam Baghel Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Pradeep Kumar Sinha
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner was compulsorily retired by the respondent Bank on 18.4.2016. He claim for payment of pension has been declined vide impugned communication dated 30.4.2019 which records that in terms of the provisions contained in regulations 13 & 20(1) of Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 2018 petitioner's claim is not covered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that regulation 13 provides for ten years service as qualifying service for pension, and cannot be a ground to deny consideration since petitioner's working is more than ten years. So far as regulation 20(1) is concerned, the same pertains to forfeiture of service benefits and apparently would not be applicable in case of compulsory retirement.
Sri Sinha who appears for the respondent Bank clearly states that applicable provision in the matter would be regulation 31.
Admittedly, regulation 31 has not been referred to or relied upon for the purposes of examining petitioner's claim for payment of pension. The provisions which have been referred to in the order/communication apparently would not constitute a valid basis for rejection of petitioner's claim.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order/communication dated 30.4.2019 stands quashed. Matter stands remitted to the Bank concerned for taking a fresh decision, after taking into consideration regulation 31 of the Regulations of 2018, or any other provision that may be applicable, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Ashok Kr.