JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to pay him pension with effect from the date he voluntarily retired from service which is 16.12.1993 in accordance with Regulation 29 of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1995 and, so also, direct the respondents to pay the entire arrears of pension admissible to him as per the Regulations with effect from 16.12.1993 till the date of actual payment along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Further, as a consequence of the aforesaid relief, the petitioner has claimed retrial benefits as a consequence of voluntary retirement with effect from 16.12.1993 along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. 2. Besides the above, the petitioner has prayed in the writ petition that by an appropriate writ or direction it may be declared that Regulation 22(1) of the Regulations is not applicable so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned and it may be held that the word "resignation" used in Regulation 22(1) may be declared to be unreasonable, void, unconstitutional and ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Brief facts of the case narrated by the petitioner in the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Record Keeper-cum-Godown Keeper and he joined his duties as such with effect from 21.07.1971. Thereafter, upon satisfactory service, he was confirmed on the said post with effect from 14.05.1972. The petitioner was promoted further to the post of Clerk-cum- Cashier with effect from 01.10.1979 and, then, he continuously worked on the said post. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that he was discharging his duties very faithfully and sincerely and, in this regard, he has placed on record Annex.-1, the certificate issued by the respondent Bank where the petitioner was working. 4. The petitioner's case is that in the month of July 1993, due to illness, the petitioner was required to undergo some long treatment, therefore, a voluntary resignation was tendered by him to the Bank authorities in the month of July 1993 by giving one month's notice as per the rules prevailing in the Bank. However, after filing the application for voluntary resignation, the petitioner thought it proper to submit an application for withdrawal of the application because he became fit to discharge duties. However, after filing the application for voluntary resignation, the petitioner thought it proper to submit an application for withdrawal of the application because he became fit to discharge duties. In that view of the matter, the application for voluntary resignation was refused and the petitioner was directed to join duties at Branch RCP Beechwal. The petitioner joined the duties but while working at the new place of posting at Beechwal Branch of the Bank the petitioner again fell ill, therefore, in the compelling circumstances, he submitted an application for voluntary resignation/voluntary retirement from the service with effect from 17.11.1993 and the said application of the petitioner was accepted by the authorities concerned vide communication dated 16.12.1993 just after the expiry of 30 days of making the application. After acceptance of the said application, with some difficulty, the petitioner was paid salary and other dues except pension although the petitioner had completed 22 years and 2 months service before filing the aforesaid application for voluntary resignation/voluntary retirement and under Regulation 29 of the Regulations there is provision for grant of pension after completion of 10 years of service and, so also, there is provision for seeking voluntary retirement; but, the benefit of pension was not granted to the petitioner. 5. In the writ petition, it is stated that although as per the tenure of his service which is 22 years 2 months, the petitioner became entitled for the pensionary benefit and he raised the grievance for non-payment of pension from time to time but the pension was not allowed to the petitioner. With regard to entitlement of the pension, it is stated in para 9 of the writ petition that the question for payment of pension was raised from time to time by the employees Unions and ultimately a settlement was signed between the Indian Banks' Association and the AIBEA, apart from the other employees Unions viz., the NCBE and INBEF, on 29.10.1993 for introducing Pension Scheme in the banking industry w.e.f. 01.11.1993. In pursuance thereof the respondent Bank issued a circular dated 10.06.1994 whereby, in terms of the Pension Scheme, ex-employees who have retired on or after 01.01.1986 but before 01.11.1993 were held to be eligible for pension. They became entitled for monthly pension as well as commutation facility as from 01.11.1993. In pursuance thereof the respondent Bank issued a circular dated 10.06.1994 whereby, in terms of the Pension Scheme, ex-employees who have retired on or after 01.01.1986 but before 01.11.1993 were held to be eligible for pension. They became entitled for monthly pension as well as commutation facility as from 01.11.1993. Similarly, staff members who are in Bank's service as on 31.10.1993 are required to exercise option to become members of the Pension Scheme. 6. It is contended by the petitioner that although the respondent Bank has issued circular for introduction of Pension Scheme but, later on, in exercise of powers conferred under clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Understandings) Act 1970, the Board of Directors of the Bank, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government made the Regulations viz., The Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 and the same were made applicable to all the Banks for the purpose of grant of pension to the employees of the Bank. Accordingly, the respondent Bank also framed its own Regulations viz., The State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (in short, "the Regulations" hereinafter). The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner's case comes within the purview of Regulation 29 of the Regulations in which it is provided that pension will be allowed to those Bank employees who will seek voluntary retirement and as per Regulation 29(1) it is prescribed that pension on voluntary retirement will be allowed to those employees on or after 01.11.1993, at any time, after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. Further, under sub-section (3), it is provided that an employee referred to in sub-section (1) may make request to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement even within less than three months after giving the notice of voluntary retirement and on receipt of such request the appointment authority may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) consider such request for curtailment of the period on merit and, in case the curtailment will not cause any administrative inconvenience, may relax the requirement of three months' notice. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Regulation 29 the petitioner became entitled for the pensionary benefit because he worked for more than 22 years and as per condition for the voluntary retirement he was having the qualifying service to his credit for grant of the pensionary benefit which is 20 years but the respondent Bank refused to grant pensionary benefit although repeatedly he made requests to the respondent Bank. It is also submitted that although applications were filed from time to time for granting pensionary benefit but, at last, a notice was sent on 20.01.2001 through his Advocate Shri R.P. Vyas and despite this notice no action was taken by the respondents. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner also made best efforts for finalisation of his pension case but verbal assurance was given that his case will be decided. However, till 10.09.2003 when the case of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefit was not decided, then, again notice for demand of justice (Annex.-7) was sent through Advocate Shri R.L. Jangid. To the last notice for demand of justice, the respondent Bank gave reply on 25.09.2003, in which, the Bank denied the petitioner's right and entitlement to pension. 9. The contention of the petitioner is that the reply so given by the respondent Bank is totally baseless and was wholly misconceived because the respondent Bank while taking shelter of Regulation 22(1) of the Regulations denied the pensionary benefit to the petitioner. As per the respondents, the petitioner has filed application for resignation and according to Regulation 22(1) there is express provision to deny the pensionary benefit upon resignation, dismissal, removal or termination of an employee from service of the Bank; meaning thereby, the respondents are not treating the application filed by the petitioner as application for voluntary retirement and considered the same as filed for resigning from the service of the Bank, therefore, as per the respondents' reply the respondent Bank is treating the petitioner disqualified for the grant of pensionary benefit because he has filed the application for resignation and not for voluntary retirement and as per Regulation 22(1) there is provision for disqualification for pension upon resignation. Learned counsel for the petitioner while attacking upon the reply of the respondents submitted that the denial of the pensionary claim by the respondent Bank is totally illegal and has no foundation before the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner while attacking upon the reply of the respondents submitted that the denial of the pensionary claim by the respondent Bank is totally illegal and has no foundation before the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following grounds for his entitlement. (A) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly the petitioner had completed more than 22 years of service which is not in dispute. Further, it is also not in dispute that for the first time pension scheme was introduced by the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur vide Annex.-5 dated 10.06.1994 which is admittedly after the acceptance of the application of the petitioner for resignation/voluntary retirement. The said circular Annex.-5 was issued in pursuance of the settlement signed between the Reserve Bank of India and AIBEA apart from other employees' unions such as NCB and NIBEF, affirmed at on 29.10.1993 for introducing the Pension Scheme in the banking industry with effect from 01.11.1993; meaning thereby, the Pension Scheme was made applicable with effect from 01.11.1993 in the respondent Bank itself and, admittedly, the petitioner's prayer for voluntary resignation/voluntary retirement was accepted on 16.12.1993, i.e. after applicability of the Pension Scheme by the respondent Bank. (B) It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that although in the application the word "voluntary resignation" was used but obviously it purported to mean voluntary retirement and no other meaning can be assigned to the same because for the simple reason that he had already completed more than 22 years of qualifying service and no prudent man will file any application for resignation instead of voluntary retirement he had completed 20 years of service upon which voluntary retirement is permissible. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that no application for voluntary retirement was filed by the petitioner is totally baseless. More so, a hyper-technical ground is raised by the respondents for denial of the pensionary benefit to the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that no application for voluntary retirement was filed by the petitioner is totally baseless. More so, a hyper-technical ground is raised by the respondents for denial of the pensionary benefit to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards Annex.-3 dated 17.11.1993 which reads as under : lsok esa] 'kk[kk izca/kd egksn;] LVsV cSad vkWQ chdkusj ,.M t;iqj] chNkoky 'kk[kk] vkj0lh0ih0 dkyksuh] chdkusj fnukad 17&11&93 ekU;oj egksn;] fo"k;%& LoSPNkiw.kZ R;kx i= Lohdkj djus gsrq vkosnu ueLdkjA eSa vkt fnukad 17 uoEcj 93 bl i= ds }kjk lwfpr djrk gwa fd eSa cSad lsok djus esa ,dne iw.kZ :is.k l{ke ugha gwa vr% ,oa 'kh?kz gh 'kh?kz esjk R;kx i= Lohdkj djus dh vuqdEik djsaA 1- ekg uoEcj 93 dk osru esa ls vk;dj dVkSrh ugha djsa] D;ksafd esjs osru ;ksx ls vk;dj curk gh ugha] vr% lwpukFkZ fjiksVZ izsf"kr gSA 2- esjk R;kxi= Lohdkj djds lwfpr djsa] rkfd eSa vkxkeh dk;Zokgh dj ldwaA 3- esjs leLr _.k gekjh ifCyd ikdZ 'kk[kk ls fy;k gq, gS] vr% mDr leLr cdk;k e; C;kt tek djok dj eSa izek.k i= izkIr dj ywaxk vr% izsf"kr gSA 4- ekg uoEcj 93 ds osru esa ls Hkfo"; fuf/k dVkSrh ds vykok fdlh Hkh izdkj dVkSrh ugha djus dh d`ik djsaA 5- 30 uoEcj 93 rd P.L. vodk'k esjs [kkrs tek dj vodk'k ckcr~ fglkc iw.kZ djus dh d`ik djsa] lkFk gh eq>s Hkh fyf[kr esa voxr djk;saA 6- bl vkosnu ds tfj;s 30 fnu iwoZ uksfVl ekurs gq, esjs R;kx i= ckcr~ leLr dk;Zokgh fuiVkus ,oa lwpuk nsus dh vuqdEik djsaA 7- bl vkosnu ds vuqlkj vkt fnukad 17&11&93 ls rhl fnu fnukad 16&12&93 rd vof/k ekurs gq, R;kx i= Lohdkj djrs gq, dk;Z Hkkj eqDr gksus ckcr~ lwpuk Hkh fnykus dh d`ik djsaA vr% mijksDr of.kZr dzekad 1 ls 7 LoSPNkiw.kZ okLrfodrk ds vk/kkj ij fy[kk gS] vr% 'kh?kzkfr'kh?kz mDr ckcr~ fu.kZ; ysdj izkFkhZ dks lwfpr djus dh O;oLFkk djsaA l/kU;oknA Hkonh; ,l0Mh0 ( `'kadj iq"dj.kk ) The prayer and subject of the application filed by the petitioner are self speaking that the intention of the petitioner was to voluntarily relinquish the job but the respondent Bank treated the said application Annex.-3 as resignation in strict sense whereas after introduction of the Pension Scheme on 10.06.1994 with effect from 01.11.1993. The petitioner, therefore, became entitled for pension as he had completed 22 years and 2 months service which is more than 20 years of service provided for voluntary retirement. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the contention of the respondent cannot be accepted that this application was an application for resignation and not for voluntary retirement. (C) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the condition for filing an application for voluntary retirement prior to three months can also be condoned as per Regulation 29(3) of the Regulations whereby discretion vests in the respondent Bank even to curtail the period of notice. Obviously in Annex.-3 reasons were stated by the petitioner that he is not physically fit to perform the duties in the Bank, therefore, the acceptance of the petitioners prayer vide Annex.-4 dated 16.12.1993 is acceptance of voluntary relinquishment of service and the same cannot be termed as resignation in that sense because admittedly the petitioner had already completed more than 22 years of service. As per the Regulations pensionary benefit is applicable in the case of the petitioner because he has rendered more than 22 years of service. (D) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondents are misinterpreting the provisions for not granting the pensionary benefit to the petitioner although he is legally entitled for the pensionary benefits. The respondents are illegally treating the petitioner's application for voluntary resignation/retirement as resignation and this fact clearly speaks that somehow the respondents want to deny the benefit of pension to the petitioner although he has completed more than 20 years of qualifying service. (E) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that Regulation 22 (1) whereby disqualification for pensionary benefit has been prescribed is against the spirit of welfare of the Bank employees. (E) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that Regulation 22 (1) whereby disqualification for pensionary benefit has been prescribed is against the spirit of welfare of the Bank employees. In Regulation 22 (1), it has been prescribed as follows : "Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank including that of an employee who is deemed to have voluntarily retired from the Bank's service in terms of the provisions for voluntary cessation of employment contained in Bipartite Settlement shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits." Upon perusal of Regulation 22(1), it is obvious that there is power left with the employer for not granting the pensionary benefit in the event of dismissal, removal, or termination of the employee from the Bank service. However, resignation has also been included in the said disqualification which is against the spirit of welfare legislation for which the respondents are under obligation to frame rules to provide relief to the employees. Therefore, the word "resignation" may be deleted from the provision with regard to disqualification for entitlement to pensionary benefit. No such restriction can be imposed that if the employee resigns from the post even after completion of qualifying service then he will not be entitled for the pensionary benefit. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, obviously such word can be used in the case of an employee who has not completed 20 years of service but the same cannot be used to curtail the right of pension in respect of those employees who have rendered the qualifying service for seeking the voluntary retirement from service. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is entitled for all pensionary benefits on the ground that he had completed more than 22 years of service before filing the application for voluntary resignation/retirement. The respondent Bank cannot deny the pensionary benefit to the petitioner on any of the grounds; more so, it is the duty of the Bank to apprise an employee upon filing such application for voluntary resignation/retirement from service that certain benefits are available to him for the services rendered by him as a Bank employee. The respondent Bank cannot deny the pensionary benefit to the petitioner on any of the grounds; more so, it is the duty of the Bank to apprise an employee upon filing such application for voluntary resignation/retirement from service that certain benefits are available to him for the services rendered by him as a Bank employee. (F) With regard to delay in filing the writ petition, it is submitted that the right of pension is continuous cause of action and as per reply of the respondents they were not treating the petitioner eligible for pensionary benefit but it was not sanctioned upon the prayer made by the petitioner and, again and again, the respondents refused to grant pensionary benefit to the petitioner, therefore, the delay in filing the writ petition will not come in the way of seeking the relief of pension by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the Court towards the judgment of this Court reported in 2004 (4) WLC 180 in which the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in similar set of facts held that pension is made available to voluntary retirees on or before 01.11.1993 after completion of qualifying service, therefore, the benefit of pension cannot be denied to those employees who had completed qualifying service as on 01.11.1993 and filed even application for voluntary resignation from service. 10. Per contra, while filing reply by the respondent Bank, first of all, it is submitted that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay. So also, on the ground that the petitioner has concealed material fact that prior to notice for demand of justice sent through Shri R.L. Jangid on 25.09.2003 no reply was given by the respondent Bank. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank invited attention of the Court towards communications Annex.- R/2/1, R/2/2, R/2/3, R/2/4, R/2/5 and R/2/6 and submitted that the contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is totally false that no reply was given by the Bank upon the request so made by the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefit. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground also. 11. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground also. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that although the petitioner had completed more than 22 years of service but upon perusal of his application for leaving the job which is Annex.-3, it is clearly revealed that he had made a request for resignation from service with effect from 16.12.1993. Obviously, the said period is meant for resignation and not for voluntary retirement under the Regulations. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per Regulation 29 the employee is required to give notice of not less than 3 months in writing to the competent authority for retirement which is obviously not given by the petitioner, therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted that he had filed application for voluntary retirement and not for resignation. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the prayer of the petitioner for resignation was accepted vide communication dated 16.12.1993 (Annex.-4) wherein also it is stated that his resignation from the Bank service is accepted; meaning thereby, the petitioner did not object to acceptance of resignation, therefore, now he cannot take somersault and say that his application was for voluntary retirement and not for resignation. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that there is difference between resignation and voluntary retirement. Resignation is disqualification for grant of pensionary benefit whereas upon application for voluntary retirement if an employee has completed qualifying service which is 20 years, then, no refusal can be made by the Bank for accepting voluntary retirement. In that event, the employee would become entitled for the pensionary benefit, therefore, resignation and voluntary retirement cannot be treated at par in the sense. Admittedly, upon the language used by the petitioner in Annex.-3 dated 17.11.1993 he has specifically prayed that he is filing his resignation although in the subject matter he has stated that it is voluntary resignation because it cannot be termed as voluntary retirement which was not objected by the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the word "resignation" used alongwith dismissal, removal and termination in Regulation 22 (1) is in consonance with the Constitutional provisions and it cannot be termed violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the word "resignation" used alongwith dismissal, removal and termination in Regulation 22 (1) is in consonance with the Constitutional provisions and it cannot be termed violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. More so, there is power left to the employer to provide reasonable restriction upon the employees for relinquishing the job, therefore, the contention of the petitioner to delete the word resignation from the disqualification for grant of pension in Regulation 22(1) is baseless and in this view of the matter once the resignation has been accepted then the petitioner cannot be allowed to say that he has filed application for voluntary retirement and he is entitled for the pensionary benefit. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank further argued that prior to framing the Regulations of 1995 there was no provision for grant of pensionary benefit. For the first time, admittedly as per settlement arrived at in the union of Bank employees the Pension Scheme was formulated and made applicable to the banking industry and the respondent Bank issued the circular on 10.06.1994. Before that the application of the petitioner for voluntary resignation was accepted on 16.12.1993; meaning thereby, if the resignation of the petitioner was accepted then obviously his case completely falls under Regulation 22 (1) of the Regulations of 1995 in which it is specifically provided that upon resignation no pensionary benefit can be allowed to the Bank employee. In this view of the matter, no case is made out by the petitioner for the purpose of granting pensionary benefit under Regulations of 1995. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank invited attention of the Court towards the judgments reported in UCO Bank & Others v. Sanwar Mal, 2004(2) SCT 440 : (2004)4 SCC 412 , in which it has been held by the apex Court that between resignation and retirement or voluntary retirement there is vast difference because application for resignation can be filed at any time but the employee retires only on superannuation or he may seek voluntary retirement after completion of qualifying service. 15. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank next placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Reserve Bank Of India v. Cecil Dennis Solomon, 2004(1) SCT 326 : (2004)9 SCC 461 in which the apex Court held that there is distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement and superannuation and, so also, compulsory retirement. Therefore, when different meaning of the words are interpreted by the apex Court, then, the petitioner cannot claim pensionary benefit on the ground that his application for voluntary resignation may be treated as voluntary retirement. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents also invited attention of the Court towards the judgment reported in Union Of India v. Braj Nandan Singh, 2006(1) SCT 554 : (2005) 8 SCC 325 . He argued that the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2004(4) WLC 180 is not applicable in the present set of facts, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the pensionary benefit on the ground that his application for voluntary resignation shall be treated as application for voluntary retirement from service. As per the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to pension as he never submitted application for voluntary retirement but he resigned from service of the Bank. Further, merely on the completion of qualifying service he does not become entitled to pension unless he submits proper application for voluntary retirement, therefore, the petitioner's case is covered by Regulation 22 as he filed application for resignation and not for voluntary retirement. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the case of the petitioner does not fall under Regulation 29(1) of the Regulations or any other provision except Regulation 22(1) in which there is complete bar upon grant of pensionary benefit in the event of filing application for resignation by the employee. 17. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties. 18. 17. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties. 18. In this case, admittedly an application was filed by the petitioner on 17.11.1993 in which the following request was made : ekU;oj egksn;] fo"k;% LoSPNkiw.kZ R;kx i= Lohdkj djus gsrq vkosnu ueLdkjA eSa vkt fnukad 17 uoEcj 93 bl i= ds }kjk lwfpr djrk gwa fd eSa cSad lsok djus esa ,dne iw.kZ :is.k l{ke ugha gwa vr% ,oa 'kh?kz gh 'kh?kz esjk R;kx i= Lohdkj djus dh vuqdEik djsaA 1- ekg uoEcj 93 dk osru esa ls vk;dj dVkSrh ugha djs] D;ksafd esjs osru ;ksx ls vk;dj curk gh ugha] vr% lwpukFkZ fjiksVZ izsf"kr gSA 2- esjk R;kxi= Lohdkj djds lwfpr djsa] rkfd eSa vkxkeh dk;Zokgh dj ldwaA 3- esjs leLr _.k gekjh ifCyd ikdZ 'kk[kk ls fy;k gq, gS] vr% mDr leLr cdk;k e; C;kt tek djok dj eSa izek.k i= izkIr dj ywaxk vr% izsf"kr gSA 4- ekg uoEcj 93 ds osru esa ls Hkfo"; fuf/k dVkSrh ds vykok fdlh Hkh izdkj dVkSrh ugha djus dh d`ik djsaA 5- 30 uoEcj 93 rd P.L. vodk'k esjs [kkrs tek dj vodk'k ckcr~ fglkc iw.kZ djus dh d`ik djsa] lkFk gh eq>s Hkh fyf[kr esa voxr djk;saA 6- bl vkosnu ds tfj;s 30 fnu iwoZ uksfVl ekurs gq, esjs R;kx i= ckcr~ leLr dk;Zokgh fuiVkus ,oa lwpuk nsus dh vuqdEik djsaA 7- bl vkosnu ds vuqlkj vkt fnukad 17-11-93 ls rhl fnu fnukad 16-12-93 rd vof/k ekurs gq, R;kx i= Lohdkj djrs gq, dk;ZHkkj eqDr gksus ckcr~ lwpuk Hkh fnykus dh d`ik djsaA vr% mijksDr of.kZr dzekad 1 ls 7 LoSPNkiw.kZ okLrfodrk ds vk/kkj ij fy[kk gS] vr% 'kh?kzkfr'kh?kz mDr ckcr~ fu.kZ; ysdj izkFkhZ dks lwfpr djus dh O;oLFkk djsaA l/kU;oknA " 19. Upon perusal of the above application, it is obvious that upon the contents the intention of the applicant was obvious that he has specifically used the word "voluntary" and while concluding with the prayer in the application the applicant has not prayed for acceptance of resignation but, while assigning the reasons, he has made prayer for taking final decision in his case on the ground that he is physically not fit to discharge his duties. It is also admitted by the respondents that on the day on which the application was filed by the petitioner and accepted by the respondent no circular was issued by the Bank prescribing the pensionary benefit. It is also admitted by the respondents that on the day on which the application was filed by the petitioner and accepted by the respondent no circular was issued by the Bank prescribing the pensionary benefit. The circular Annex.-5 was issued on 10.06.1994 after acceptance of the petitioner's application for relinquishment of the job. Therefore, as and when a decision was taken by the Bank for prescribing the pensionary benefit the Bank was under obligation to inform all those employees who left the job after having completed qualifying service for voluntary retirement as per Regulations of 1995. Once the circular was issued by the Bank for grant of certain benefits on voluntary retirement, after acceptance of the application of the petitioner for relinquishing the job, then, certainly it was the duty of the Bank to inform the petitioner with regard to provisions of the Regulations of 1995; but, upon perusal of the reply, it is evident that the respondents have straight away treated the petitioner's case under Regulation 22(1) in which the resignation has been prescribed as disqualification for grant of pensionary benefit. Therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to argue that no option was filed by the petitioner or that the petitioner was not entitled to get any pensionary benefit for the simple reason that the petitioner had completed more than 22 years of service and had filed the application on personal ground of physical unfitness. Therefore, it is the obligatory duty of the respondent employer to inform the employee whose application for relinquishment of job was accepted for the health reasons. If the application of the petitioner was accepted on the ground narrated by him that he is not physically fit, then, it was obligatory duty of the Bank to apprise the petitioner that he has completed qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefit, therefore, if the employee is willing to accept the pensionary benefit then he was to give option but it has not been done and, now, the respondents have taken the ground that the petitioner cannot be permitted to exercise his option for pensionary benefit nor his application can be treated to be an application for voluntary retirement. 20. In fact, in my opinion, the Bank has presumed that the petitioner is not entitled for pension in view of the fact that he filed the application for resignation. 20. In fact, in my opinion, the Bank has presumed that the petitioner is not entitled for pension in view of the fact that he filed the application for resignation. This stand of the Bank is untenable in the eye of law because if there is no provision existing on that date, then, at that time, there was no difference between voluntary resignation and voluntary retirement; but, subsequently the pension scheme was introduced although the decision was taken prior to acceptance of the petitioner's applicant, then, in that event, it was the duty of the Bank to grant an opportunity to the petitioner because, specifically, certain benefits wee provided in the Pension Scheme in the event of filing application for voluntary retirement. 21. The stand of the respondent Bank that resignation cannot be equated with voluntary retirement has no force of law; more so, a legal question arose in this case that whether any penal provision can be incorporated in the welfare legislation by the Bank and, of course, it cannot be done because under Regulation 22(1) of the Regulations the respondents are treating resignation as penal in character. It is also obvious from the reply filed in this case by the respondent Bank in which, vide para 24, it is contended by the Bank that it is absolutely wrong to contend that Regulation 22 of the Regulations is penal in character; but, in fact, it is penal in character because the word "resignation" can be treated to a disqualification for the pensionary benefit if those employees who rendered lesser service than the qualifying service of 20 years but it cannot be used for those employees who rendered more than 20 years of qualifying service. Therefore, the word "resignation" construed by the respondents in the case of the petitioner for disqualifying him for pensionary benefit has no rationale or constitutional validity. More so, while considering the case of the petitioner under Regulation 22 (1), treating the petitioner's application as resignation for denial of the pensionary benefit is totally irrational and unwarranted because such resignation tendered voluntarily after completion of more than 22 years of service cannot be construed to mean resignation occurring in Regulation 22(1) of the Regulations which necessarily connotes resignation from service prior to completion of qualifying service disentitling a person from the retrial benefits. Even otherwise also, completion of qualifying service would by itself entitle a person for the pensionary benefit and, therefore, in that case, technical meaning cannot be construed so as to divest the petitioner from the entitlement that accrued to him after having completed more than qualifying service in the Bank. The intention of the petitioner can also be gathered from the tenor of the application that, in fact, he intended to seek voluntary retirement on personal grounds. Therefore, the respondents cannot deny the pensionary benefit to the petitioner who had rendered more than 22 years of service for which the benefit of pension is applicable and admissible to the petitioner. 22. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents that resignation cannot be equated with voluntary retirement, in view of the aforesaid, are not relevant in this case. The language used by the petitioner in the application conveys his intention which manifestly shows that the petitioner tendered application, in fact, for voluntary retirement. No prudent man can be imagined to forsake his retiral benefits after having completed more than qualifying service in the employment. Since the petitioner made the application on the ground of physical unfitness, therefore, the reason for giving one month's notice is obvious and as such the acceptance of the application vide communication dated 16.12.1993 was required to be treated under Regulation 29(3) in which it is specifically provided that upon reasons the period of notice can be curtailed by the appointing authority. In my opinion, therefore, the petitioner's prayer to accept his application with effect from 16.12.1993 was in consonance with Regulation 29(3) of the Regulations. As such it was to be treated as voluntary retirement from service because the petitioner had completed more than 22 years of service on the date of leaving the job. 23. During the course of arguments, it was contended by learned counsel for the respondent Bank that the petitioner has concealed material facts from the Court with regard to earlier communications sent by the Bank for informing him as to disentitlement to pensionary benefit. In my opinion, this ground does not come in the way of grant of pensionary benefit to the petitioner because in all the communications referred to by the respondents it is informed by the Bank that the petitioner has filed application for resignation and the Bank is treating his application as resignation. In my opinion, this ground does not come in the way of grant of pensionary benefit to the petitioner because in all the communications referred to by the respondents it is informed by the Bank that the petitioner has filed application for resignation and the Bank is treating his application as resignation. Manifestly, as observed hereinabove, the petitioner's application purported to be an application for voluntary retirement from service. Therefore, the contention of the respondents does not survive to shatter the case of the petitioner. Moreover, the respondents treated the petitioner's application as resignation there cannot be any question that no option was filed by the petitioner. 24. With regard to the judgment reported in UCO Bank v. Sanwar Mal, 2004(2) SCT 440 : (2004)4 SCC 412 , although the apex Court held that there is difference between resignation and voluntary retirement. However, facts of the present case are altogether different because, in this case, it emerges from the application filed by the petitioner that petitioner intended to leave job after completion of more than qualifying service on health grounds and, although the settlement had arrived at in between the Banks' employees and the Bank on that date, but subsequently the Regulations were framed in which resignation was incorporated for disqualification for pension but that can be used in respect of those employees who had not rendered qualifying service or more for entitlement to pension. 25. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. It is held that the word "resignation" used in Regulation 22(1) for disqualification for the purpose of pensionary benefit is restricted to those employees who have rendered less than qualifying service and cannot come in the way of those employees who have completed qualifying service or more in the Bank and, thereafter, relinquish voluntarily the job either by way of voluntary resignation or voluntary retirement. Therefore, the respondents are directed to release monthly pension in favour of the petitioner payable with effect from 16.12.1993. If any payment has been made by the Bank as a consequence of passing order dated 16.12.1993 the same shall be adjusted towards arrears of pension of the petitioner.There shall however be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. *******