N.N.Veerappan v. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary , Department of Banking Affairs, New Delhi

M/s.Row and Reddy for R2 No appearance for RR3 and 4ORDERThe petitioner joined as a Messenger in the 2nd respondentBank in the year 1960 and later on, he was promoted to the clericalcadre. On 19.09.1988, he submitted his application for voluntaryretirement on the ground of ill-health due to hyper tension. But,there was no response to the same, despite two of his subsequentletters. Finally, when he approached the Assistant General Manager(Personnel) at Chennai, he claims, he was asked to submit anapplication for voluntary retirement along with an amountequivalent to one month's pay and other allowances, in lieu ofnotice period in accordance with service regulations governing theemployees of the Bank. Accordingly, he did on 23.03.1989. The samewas accepted with effect from 15.02.1989. He had put in 28 years ofservice in the Bank. Following his retirement, he was paidgratuity and provident fund by the Bank. 2. Subsequently, Indian Overseas Bank (Employees') PensionRegulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the PensionRegulations, 1995") was introduced in exercise of the powerconferred under Clause (f) of sub section (2) of Section 19 of theBanking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings), Act,1970 (5 of 1970), whereunder, pension option was made available tothe employees of the Bank in lieu of the employer's contributionin the Provident Fund on the employees surrendering the same to theBank According to Clause 29 of the said Pension Regulations, 1995,claiming that he is entitled for pension on voluntary retirement,he applied on 30.11.1993 to the Personnel AdministrationDepartment, Central Office for such pension. Finally, by letterdated 05.08.1998, the Chief Officer Pension Cell of the 2ndrespondent Bank informed the petitioner that those employees, whohad voluntarily retired from the Bank’s service during the periodbetween 01.01.1986 and 31.10.1993 are not eligible for pension interms of the Pension Regulations, 1995 and the employees who havevoluntarily retired on or after 01.11.1993 under Clause 29 of thePension Regulations, 1995 are alone eligible for voluntaryretirement pension. The petitioner challenges the same in thiswrit petition and seeks a consequential direction to the respondentBank to grant him pension as per the Pension Regulations, 1995.3. The contentions of the petitioner are as follows:-(i) The impugned Scheme by excluding thosewho had retired prior to 01.11.1993, makes anartificial distinction based on a irrational choiceof the date arbitrarily and therefore, theexclusion of those who had retired prior to01.11.1993 is illegal and void as offendingArticle 14 of the Constitution of India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) Since voluntary retirement Scheme wasnot introduced for the first time by the impugnedPension Regulations, among employees, who haveretired voluntarily based on the same procedure andon the same terms and who were paid the samebenefits under the impugned Pension Regulations,the Bank has introduced a classification, which isa classification among equals by classifying theretired employees as those who retired prior to01.11.1993 and those who retired subsequent to01.11.1993 which offends Article 14 of theConstitution as the said classification is notbased on any intelligible differentia which has arationale nexus with the object to be achieved bythe Pension Scheme.(iii) Though the Pension Scheme wasintroduced on 29.09.1995, it has been givenretrospective effect with effect from 01.11.1993.In having given retrospective reach in respect ofthose employees, it is not rationale to deny suchretrospective reach to those who retired prior to01.11.1993.(iv) The voluntary retirement of thepetitioner is governed by Para 522 (2) and 522(3)of Sastry Award applicable to the Award Staffand so under Clause 2 (y) of the PensionRegulations, it should be treated as prematureretirement so as to give the benefit of prematureretirement pension as provided under Clause 32 ofthe Pension Regulations.4. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent , itis contended as follows:(i) The pension scheme was introduced asper a settlement reached under Section 18 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and according toclause (11) of the Settlement , the pension schemeshould take retrospective effect only from01.11.1993 and therefore, it cannot be stated thatfixation of the said cut off date is arbitrary.(ii) The petitioner did not go onvoluntary retirement and as a matter of fact, heleft the service of the bank on health groundsunder Para 522 (2) and 522 (3) of Sastry Award on15.02.1989 and so he is not covered under thepension scheme.(iii) The fixation of cut of date cannot betermed as arbitrary since the date was arrived aton the basis of the negotiations between theemployees' unions and the management of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent Bank.(iv) Prior to the coming into force of thePension Regulations, there was no provision forvoluntary retirement for Award Staff under theAward/Settlement. The petitioner being an AwardStaff, is not entitled for any of the pensions asprovided in the pension scheme. The petitioner hasalready been paid the provident fund as per therules that were in force on 15.02.1989 when he leftthe service of the respondent Bank on healthgrounds under the Sastry Award and so he is notentitled for voluntary retirement pension, which isgoverned by the India Overseas Bank (Employees')Pension Regulations, 1995.5. I have considered the rival submissions and also perusedthe records carefully.6. Before going into the facts of the case, let me firstanalyse the Scheme of the Pension Regulations,1995. Clauses 3(1) and 3 (2) of the Pension Regulations deal with theeligibility of employees for the application the PensionRegulations for pension. The said provisions read thus:3. ApplicationThese regulations shall apply to employees who,(1) (a) where in the service of the Bank on orafter the 1st day of January, 1986 but had retiredbefore the 1st day of November, 1993; and(b) exercise an option in writing within onehundred and twenty days from the notified date tobecome member of the Fund; and(c) refund within sixty days after the expiryof the said period of one hundred and twenty daysspecified in clause (b) the entire amount of the bank'scontribution to the Provident Fund including interestaccrued thereon together with a further simple interestat the rate of six per cent per annum on the saidamount from the date of settlement of the ProvidentFund account till the date of refund of the aforesaidamount to the bank; or(2) (a) have retired on or after the 1st dayof November, 1993 but before the notified date; and (b) exercise an option in writing withinone hundred and twenty days from the notified date tobecome member of the Fund; and (c) refund within sixty days after theexpiry of the said period of one hundred and twentydays specified in clause (b) the entire amount of theBank's contribution to the Provident Fund and interestaccrued thereon together with a further simple interestat the rate of six per cent per annum on the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ amount from the date of settlement of the ProvidentFund account till the date of refund of the aforesaidamount to the Bank; or ......................"7. Clause 14 of the Pension Regulations defines the term"Qualifying Service" as follows:"Subject to the other conditions containedin these regulations, an employee who has rendered aminimum of ten years of service in the Bank on thedate of his retirement or the date on which he isdeemed to have retired shall qualify for pension."8. Chapter V of the Pension Regulations deals with theClasses of Pension. Clause 28 of the Pension Regulations, providesfor "Superannuation Pension" Clause 29 provides for "Pension onVoluntary Retirement"; Clause 30 provides for "Invalid Pension";Clause 31 provides for "Compassionate Allowance"; Clause 32provides for "Premature Retirement Pension"; Clause 33 provides for"Compulsory Retirement Pension'; and Clause 34 provides for"Family Pension" in respect of employees who retired or diedbetween 01.01.1986 and 31.10.1993.9. Superannuation Pension shall be granted to an employeewho has retired on his attaining the age of superannuationspecified in the Service Regulations or Settlement. InvalidPension may be granted to an employee, who was declared by theBank to be unfit for further service and Compassionate Allowance isapplicable to an employee who is dismissed or removed orterminated from service. Compulsory Retirement Pension isapplicable to an employee who is compulsorily retired and underClause 34, the employees who retired or died between 01.01.1986and 31.10.1993 are entitled for Family Pension with effect from01.11.1993. 10. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition,the petitioner has claimed that he is entitled for pension on"Voluntary Retirement" as provided under clause 29 of the PensionRegulations. According to the said provision, on or after01.11.1993, an employee who has completed 20 years of qualifyingservice, may, by giving notice of not less than three months inwriting to the appointing authority, retire from service. Suchvoluntarily retired employee shall be eligible for pension known as" Pension on Voluntary Retirement".11. During the course of arguments, the learned seniorcounsel for the petitioner would submit that if not under Clause 29of the Pension Regulations, at least under Clause 32 of thePension Regulations, the petitioner is entitled for "PrematureRetirement Pension". Under the said provision, Premature RetirementPension may be granted to an employee who has rendered minimum of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10 years of service and who retires from service on account oforders of the Bank to retire prematurely in the public interest orfor any other reasons specified in service regulations orsettlement, if otherwise, he was entitled to such pension orsuperannuation on that date.12. The term "Retirement" has been defined in Clause 2(y)of the Pension Regulations as follows:"Retirement" means cessation fromBank's Service(a) on attaining the age ofsuperannuation specified in ServiceRegulations or Settlements;(b) on voluntary retirement inaccordance with provisions contained inregulation 29 of these regulations;(c) on premature retirement by theBank before attaining the age ofsuperannuation specified in ServiceRegulations or Settlement.13. The term "Retired" has been defined in Clause 2 (x) asfollows: "Retired" includes deemed to have retiredunder clause(I);14. The term "Deemed to have Retired" has been defined inClause 2(l) "Deemed to have Retired" means cessationfrom service of the Bank on appointment byCentral Government as a whole – time Directoror Managing Director or Chairman in the Bankor in any other Bank specified in Column 2 ofthe FIRST SCHEDULE of the Act or BankingCompanies (Acquisition and Transfer ofUndertakings) Act, 1980 (40 of 1980) or in anypublic financial Institution or State Bank ofIndia established under State Bank of IndiaAct, 1955 ( 23 of 1955).15. At this juncture, it is also relevant to refer to theterm "Employee" as defined in Clause 2 (n) of the PensionRegulations"Employee" means any person employedin the service of the bank on full time workon permanent basis or on part – time work onpermanent basis on scale wages and who optsand is governed by these regulations, butdoes not include a person employed either oncontract basis or daily wage basis or onconsolidated wages." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16. The above extracted provisions would give a broad ideaas to who are all entitled for pension. If an employee retires onattaining the age of superannuation as defined in Clause 2(y)(a) ofthe Pension Regulations, he will be entitled for pension underClause 28 viz., superannuation Pension. If a person retires asdefined in Clause 2 (y) (b) of the Pension Regulations, then he isentitled for pension under Clause 29 of the Pension Regulations,viz., "Pension on Voluntary Retirement" and if he retires asdefined in Clause 2(y) (c) of the Pension Regulations, he will beentitled for pension under Clause 32 of the Pension Regulationsviz., "Premature Retirement Pension".17. One of the contentions of the petitioner, as I havealready extracted in the earlier paragraphs of this order, is thathe is entitled for pension on voluntary retirement as providedunder Clause 29 of the Pension Regulations since his request forvoluntary retirement was accepted by the respondent Bank. But, thecontention of the respondent Bank is that the petitioner did not goon voluntary retirement as there was no such scheme availableprior to the introduction of the Pension Regulations, 1995 inrespect of award staff to allow them to go on such voluntaryretirement.18. In the affidavit of the petitioner, it is contendedthat even before the introduction of the pension scheme, there wasa scheme enabling the award staff also to avail the benefit ofvoluntary retirement. But, the learned senior counsel for thepetitioner is not able to substantiate the same during hisargument that such Scheme was available for award staff.19. The contention of the respondent Bank is that thepetitioner left the service and he was not allowed to go onvoluntary retirement.20. Admittedly, there was neither any regulations, nor ascheme in force prior to the Pension Regulations, 1995 to enablean award staff to seek voluntary retirement. It was, for the firsttime, such provision was introduced for award staff only in thePension Regulations, 1995. The learned senior counsel for thepetitioner is unable to bring to the notice of this Court any suchvoluntary retirement scheme for award staff other than the PensionRegulations, 1995. Therefore, the contention of the learned seniorcounsel for the petitioner that the petitioner went on voluntaryretirement with effect from 15.02.1989 cannot be accepted.Consequentially, it has to be held that the petitioner is notentitled for voluntary retirement pension as provided under Clause29 of the Pension Regulations.21. Now, it has to be analysed as to whether the petitioneris entitled for premature retirement pension under Clause 32 of thePension Regulations. Clause 2(y)(c) of the Pension Regulations, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which defines premature retirement, states that such prematureretirement can be made by the Bank either as per the serviceregulations or as per a settlement. Though, the learned seniorcounsel for the petitioner initially made an argument that there issuch service regulation enabling the award staff to opt forpremature retirement, he could not quote the service regulationwhich so enables. However, he would develop his argument to saythat, as per the settlement which culminated in "Sastry Award",the award staff can prematurely be retired as defined in Clause 2(y)(c) of the Pension Regulations and so the petitioner would beentitled for premature retirement pension as per Clause 32 of thePension Regulations.22. The term "Settlement" has been defined in Clause 2(zb)of the Pension Regulations as follows:-"Settlement" means memorandum ofsettlement agreed between the management of theBank represented by the association authorised bythem and workmen of such Bank represented bytrade unions authorised by them".23. It should be noticed that as per the settlementreached between the employees' union and the banks, the Tribunalfor the adjudication of Industrial Disputes concerning BankingCompanies, Chaired by Sri. S.Panchapagesa Sastry, retired Judge ofHigh Court of Judicature, Madras, passed an Award. Section IV ofChapter XXV of the Award deals with procedure for termination ofemployees. In para 522 of the Award, the Tribunal has directedthus: " The service of any employee other than apermanent employee or probationer may beterminated, and he may leave service, after 14days' notice. If such an employee leaves servicewithout giving such notice he shall be liable fora week's pay (including all allowances)."24. There is no controversy at all that para 522(4) of theAward is applicable to a Class of employees who are not permanentemployees, but known as "Award Staff". 25. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner gave aletter seeking retirement. As per the directions of the respondentBank, he remitted one month's pay and allowances in lieu of thenotice period and the same was accepted by the Bank and thereafter,he was allowed to leave the service. The cessation of service ofthe petitioner may be termed as "termination" in terms of para522(4) of the Award.26. The next question is as to whether such terminationamounts to premature retirement as defined in Clause 2(y)(c) of thePension Regulations. Clause 2(y) of the Pension Regulations definesthe term "Retirement" meaning thereby cessation from Bank's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ service on any one of the other conditions enumerated therein.Here, termination from service, in simple terms, is a kind ofcessation from Bank's service. Such cessation would meanretirement as defined in Clause 2 (y) of the Pension Regulations.Such retirement is premature retirement , if the same was made intune with the Sastry Award. Therefore, there can be no difficultyin holding that the petitioner's termination from service amountsto premature retirement as defined in Clause 2 (y) (c) of thePension Regulations. Thus, the petitioner should be given thebenefit of premature retirement pension as provided in Clause 32of the Pension Regulations, if he satisfies the other conditions ofthe said provision.27. For premature retirement, two conditions are to besatisfied under Clause 32 of the Pension Regulations, viz., i) he should have rendered minimum of 10years of qualifying service; and(ii) he retired from service by an orderof the Bank to retire prematurely in the publicinterest or for any other reasons specified inservice regulations or settlement. 28. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not retiredeither in the interest of public or for any other reasons specifiedin the service regulations. The contention of the learned seniorcounsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has retiredprematurely by satisfying the requirements of the settlement viz.,Sastry Award. As I have already extracted supra, in para 522 (4) ofthe Award, there are no reasons stated in the award on which alonean award staff may be terminated. The only condition is that theaward staff should issue 14 days' notice and if he fails to do so,he is liable to pay a week's pay including all allowances. In thecase on hand, there is no denial of fact that the petitioner paidone month's pay including all allowances and also issued notice.Therefore, as defined in Clause 32 (b) of the Pension Regulations,the petitioner has retired from service as per the settlement viz.,Sastry Award. Further, he was in service for 28 years. Thus hesatisfies both the clauses 32 (a) and 32(b) of the PensionRegulations. Therefore, there can be no difficulty in holding thatthe petitioner is entitled for premature retirement pension underClause 32(b) of the Pension Regulations.29. But, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank wouldsubmit that the Pension Regulations, 1995 in its entirety, is notapplicable to the award staff. According to him, it is applicableonly to the regular employees of the Bank. He would further submitthat even in respect of regular staff of the Bank, as per theregulations, those who have retired on or after 01.11.1993 aloneare entitled for voluntary retirement pension. The learned counselwould rely on a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UnionBank of India v. Venkatesh Gopal Mahishi and another [ 2007 (2)L.L.N. 77]. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

30. Per contra, the learned senior counsel for thepetitioner would submit that the Pension Regulations, 1995 areapplicable even for award staff and the crucial date viz.,01.11.1993 has already been declared to be unreasonable andarbitrary by the order of this Court dated 14.06.2006 made inW.P.No.5113 of 2002 (P.N.Balasubramaniam v. The Management ofIndian Overseas Bank). He would further submit that an appealpreferred in W.A.No.1076 of 2006 against the said order, wasdismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 31.08.1996. Hewould further submit that Civil Appeal filed against the saidorder before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4177 of2007 was dismissed on 30.07.2008. Therefore, the question as towhether the Pension Regulations are applicable to award staff andwhether the crucial date is enforceable, are no more res integra,it is contended. 31. I have carefully gone through the judgement of theHon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India vs. Venkatesh GopalMahishi and another cited supra. In para 22 of the saidjudgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with thequestion as to whether the impugned regulation is applicable toaward staff or nor, has not answered the same and as a matter offact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has left the same open. Therelevant portion of the judgement in para 24 are as follows:-"24. ..... The respondent No.1 has notdenied his status as an award staff when hesought retirement on medical grounds. Thus, therespondent No.1 cannot take the benefit of theletter, dated 20 September 1993, received by himfrom the Chief Manager of the appellant-bank,treating him as voluntarily retiree from theservice of the bank with effect from 1 November1993 under the Pension Regulations asnomenclature of the words "Voluntarily Retired"used in the said letter will not change thestatus of the respondent No.1 from award staffto any other category of the employee of theappellant-bank. Thus, Regulation 29, upon whichreliance is placed by the respondent No.1, isnot attracted in his case and his claim forpension is not covered thereunder."32. On carefully going through the above judgement of theHon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the ratio laid down inthe said judgement has got no application to the facts of thepresent case. In that case, the workman claimed compensation underClause 29 of the Pension Regulations stating that he had gone onvoluntary retirement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of thefact that in respect of award staff, under the service regulationsprior to the impugned pension regulation, since there was no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ provision enabling the award staff to go on voluntary retirement,it cannot be stated that the workman went on voluntary retirementso as to satisfy Clause 29 of the Pension Regulations and so, anaward staff, who retired prior to 01.11.1993 is not entitled forvoluntary retirement pension under Clause 29 of the PensionRegulations, 1995. In view of the said settled position, as I haveconcluded in para 20 of this judgement, the petitioner is notentitled for Voluntary Retirement Pension under Clause 29 of thePension Regulations, 1995. 33. Though initially, the learned senior counsel appearingfor the petitioner made an attempt to convince this Court that thepetitioner is entitled for voluntary retirement pension, asaccording to him, as per the definition of retirement as foundin Clause 2(y) (c) of the Pension Regulations, mere cessationamounts to retirement, later on, the learned senior counseldiverted the focus on Clause 32 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 tosay that insofar as the premature retirement is concerned, thejudgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not a precedent, as theHon'ble Supreme Court had no occasion to deal with PrematureRetirement Pension. According to him, the judgement is a bindingprecedent only in respect Voluntary Retirement Pension under Clause29 of the Pension Regulations. A close reading of the judgement ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court would make one to clearly understandthat the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with only Clause 29 ofthe Pension Regulations and there was no occasion for the Hon'bleSupreme Court in the said case to consider the scope of Clause 32of the Pension Regulations, 1995. So, I have to accept thecontention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner thatthe said judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicableto the instant case. If Clause 29, 30 and 32 of the PensionRegulations are compared to, it would make it crystal clear thatinsofar as the Pension on Voluntary Retirement as defined inClause 29 and Invalid Pension as defined in Clause 30 of thePension Regulations are concerned, 01.11.1993 has been prescribedas crucial date. But, in respect of premature retirement pensionas provided in Clause 32 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 there isno such crucial date prescribed. However, such prematureretirement should have been granted by the bank as per serviceregulations or settlement. Indisputably, the Sastry Award is anaward on a settlement under Section 18 (1) of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947. As I have already narrated, there is a specificenabling provision in Sastry Award under para 522(4), enabling theaward staff to go on premature retirement. To repeat, as I havealready stated, the petitioner satisfies both the conditionsenumerated in Clause 32 of the Pension Regulations, 1995. 34. Let me, now, have a glance through the judgement ofthe Division Bench of this Court made in W.A.No.1076 of 2006 (TheManagement of Indian Overseas Bank v. P.N.Balasubramaniam). In thesaid judgement, the main question was as to whether the crucialdate viz., 01.11.1993 provided in Clause 29 of the Pension https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Regulations, 1995 is valid or not. The Division Bench, after havingelaborately dealt with the entire scheme of the PensionRegulations, 1995 and also having analysed various judgements ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court has ultimately held that there is norationale behind in fixation of such cut off date so as todiscriminate those who retired prior to 01.11.1993 and to deprivethem of the pension benefits. 35. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent wouldtry to distinguish that the ratio laid down in the said judgementhas got no application to the facts of the present case since inthat case, the employee was not an award staff , but an officer.He would submit that prior to the introduction of the PensionRegulations, there was a provision enabling an officer to go onvoluntary retirement. Since under the said regulationsMr.P.N.Balasubramaniam, the petitioner therein, had gone onvoluntary retirement, the Division Bench has held that there was norationale behind fixation of cut off date so as to deprive thosewho retired prior to 01.11.1993 as per the Pension Regulations,1995.36. The learned counsel would further submit that the saidratio cannot be made applicable to the award staff since there wasno such regulation allowing an award staff to go on voluntaryretirement. There is some force in the said argument of thelearned counsel. Admittedly, prior to the introduction of theimpugned pension regulations, there was no enabling serviceregulation permitting the award staff to go on voluntaryretirement . Therefore, voluntary retirement pension can be madeavailable only to those award staff who retired on voluntaryretirement basis on or after 01.11.1993 by following the proceduresenumerated in the Pension Regulations, 1995. The view taken in theaforesaid judgement was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.Thus, there can be no more debate on this question. 37. The learned counsel for the respondent would submitthat such premature retirement should have been made by the Bank,in other words, he would submit that initiative should have comefrom the Bank and not from the employee. He would further submitthat if such a premature retirement was, on the initiative of theBank for the reasons stated in Clause 32 of the PensionRegulations, 1995, then only such retired staff shall be entitledfor premature retirement pension. On the contrary, according tothe learned counsel, if such premature retirement was, on theinitiative from the employee, then it cannot be construed that theBank retired him and therefore, scuh employee is entitled forpension. Though the aforesaid argument appears to be attractive,I am not persuaded by the same for the following reasons.Retirement prematurely is always a premature retirement and itmakes no difference as to whether the initiative came from theemployee or from the Bank. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

38. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner wouldrely on a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C.P.Employees Association, Madras v. Management of K.C.P. Limited,Madras and others 1978 I LLJ 322, wherein the Hon'ble supremeCourt has held as follows""In Industrial Law, interpreted andapplied the perspective of Part IV of theConstitution, the benefit of reasonable doubt onlaw and facts, if there be such doubt, must go tothe weaker section, labour."39. Relying on the same, the learned senior counsel wouldsubmit that the impugned Pension Regulations, 1995 should also beinterpreted so, only to the benefit of the workmen. In myconsidered opinion, there can be no doubt at all, whileinterpreting the provisions of the Pension Regulations, 1995 tofind that the award staff who prematurely retired prior to theintroduction of the Pension Scheme are entitled for prematureretirement pension.40. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and it isdeclared that the petitioner is entitled for premature retirementpension under Clause 32 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 from15.02.1989, provided he refunds the entire amount of the Bank'scontribution to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereontogether with a further simple interest at the rate of six per centper annum on the said amount from the date of settlement of theProvident Fund account till the date of refund of the aforesaidamount to the respondent Bank. If the said amount is refunded bythe petitioner, the respondent Bank is directed to calculate andpay the premature retirement pension under Clause 32 of the IndianOverseas Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarkmkTo1.The Secretary, Department of Banking Affairs, New Delhi. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The Chairman, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office,763, Anna Salai, Madras 600 002.3.The Secretary, Reserve Bank of India, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Post Box No.10007, Mumbai 400 001.1 cc To Mr.S.Rajasekar, Advocate, SR.32567.1 cc To Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, Advocate, SR.35189.1 cc To Ms.G.Ramapriya, Advocate, SR.34969.W.P.No.20470 of 1998 BKY(CO)RVL 19.08.2009