Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 4 (JHR)

Barun Prasad Singh, S/o Late Muneshwar Prasad Singh v. Central Bank of India

2019-01-02

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, B.B.MANGALMURTI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Aniruddha Bose, J. 1. This appeal is against the decision of the learned First Court dismissing the appellant-writ petitioner’s plea for pension after his resignation from the post of Branch Manager of the Central Bank of India was accepted on 21st July, 2008. The learned First Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the scheme of pension was brought into existence in the year 2010 and when the application of the petitioner’s resignation was accepted, there was no such scheme in operation. 2. At the appellate stage, the appellant has relied on Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995. According to him, his resignation was, in substance, a case of voluntary retirement and he would have been entitled to get pension in terms of Rules 14 and 29 of the said Regulation. Learned Advocate for the appellant has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashikala Devi Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors. as reported in (2014) 16 SCC 260 . This case has been cited to establish the stand of the appellant that though the letter of the appellant was for resignation, it ought to have been treated as a letter of premature voluntary retirement. 3. But this is not the case the appellant had run before the learned First Court. His case before the learned First Court was that he ought to have been given the benefit of 2010 Settlement, entered into by and between the Bank and its Union resulting in the pension scheme. 4. In such circumstances we cannot permit the appellant to make out altogether a new case at the appellate stage. We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned First Court having regard to the stand of the appellant taken before the learned First Court. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to interfere with the reasoning of the learned First Court in dismissing the writ petition. But considering the new materials brought before us by the appellant at the appellate stage, we dispose of the appeal giving liberty to the appellant to apply afresh before the appropriate forum. 5. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to cost.