JUDGMENT : (Prayer in W.P.No.32977 of 2014: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records from the respondent bank pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent bearing No.PAD/Pension/241/2014-2015 dated 02.07.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent bank to extend the petitioner option to join Indian Overseas Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, as laid down in Annexure to Bank Circular No.Misc.No. EST/62/ 2010-11 dated 30.08.2010 with costs. W.P.No.32978 of 2014: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records from the respondent bank pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent bearing No.PAD/Pension/237/2014-2015 dated 02.07.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent bank to extend the petitioner option to join Indian Overseas Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, as laid down in Annexure to Bank Circular No.Misc.No. EST/62/ 2010-11 dated 30.08.2010 with costs.) 1. The orders impugned, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners for grant of pension and pensionary benefits are under challenge in the present writ petitions. 2. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.32977 of 2014 was working as Senior Manager. After completion of 26 years of service on 27.07.2006, on certain personal circumstances, the petitioner resigned his job. 2.1. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.32978 of 2014 was working as Assistant Manager. After completion of 22 years of service on 22.01.1996, on certain personal circumstances, the petitioner resigned his job. 3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners had not opted for Pension Regulations. Based on their resignation letters, they were relieved from service. 4. Subsequently, the petitioners submitted application for grant of pensionary benefits, which was rejected on the ground that the resigned employees are not entitled for pension and pensionary benefits under the pension scheme. 5. In respect of the Nationalized Banks pension scheme issues, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.R.Prabhakar and others vs. Canara Bank and others, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 671 , held that the resigned employees are not eligible for pensionary benefits. Thus, the issues are no more res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India made the following observations in paragraph Nos.17 to 20, which reads as under: “17. Thus, the issues are no more res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India made the following observations in paragraph Nos.17 to 20, which reads as under: “17. We may indicate that in Sanwar Mal [ (2004) 4 SCC 412 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 699] , the employee, who was working on Class III post, resigned from the service of UCO Bank on 25-2-1988 after giving one month's notice and also accepted his provident fund without protest. On coming into force of the 1995 Regulations, Sanwar Mal opted for the pension scheme. Since Sanwar Mal had resigned in the year 1988, UCO Bank declined its option for admitting him as a member of the fund. This Court, as already indicated, after referring to the various provisions of the 1995 Regulations and after examining the meaning of the expressions “resignation” and “retirement”, held that since Regulation 22 provided for disqualification of employees who had resigned, such employees could not claim membership of the fund. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants have placed heavy reliance on Sheelkumar Jain [ (2011) 12 SCC 197 ] and submitted that in the light of that judgment, the decision rendered in Sanwar Mal [ (2004) 4 SCC 412 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 699] requires reconsideration. We find it difficult to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 19. We may point out that in Sheelkumar Jain [ (2011) 12 SCC 197 ] this Court was dealing with an insurance scheme and not the pension scheme, which is applicable in the banking sector. The provisions of both the scheme and the Regulations are not in pari materia. In Sheelkumar Jain case [ (2011) 12 SCC 197 ] , while referring to Para 5, this Court came to the conclusion that the same does not make distinction between “resignation” and “voluntary retirement” and it only provides that an employee who wants to leave or discontinue his service amounts to “resignation” or “voluntary retirement”. Whereas, Regulation 20(2) of the Canara Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 applicable to banks, had specifically referred to the words “resignation”, unlike Para 5 of the Insurance Rules. Whereas, Regulation 20(2) of the Canara Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 applicable to banks, had specifically referred to the words “resignation”, unlike Para 5 of the Insurance Rules. Further, it is also to be noted that, in that judgment, this Court in para 30 held that the Court will have to construe the statutory provisions in each case to find out whether the termination of service of an employee was a termination by way of resignation or a termination by way of voluntary retirement. 20. The appellants, when tendered their letters of resignation, were governed by the 1979 Regulations. Regulation 20(2) of the 1979 Regulations dealt with resignation from service and they tendered their resignation in the light of that provision. We are of the view that the appellants have failed to show any pre-existing rights in their favour either in the statutory settlement/joint note dated 29-10-1993 or under the 1995 Regulations. The appellants had resigned from service prior to 1-11-1993 and, therefore, were not covered by the statutory settlement, joint note dated 29-10-1993 and the 1995 Regulations. They could not establish any pre-existing legal, statutory or fundamental rights in their favour to claim the benefit of the 1995 Regulations. Consequently, the reliance placed by the appellants either on Regulation 29 or Regulation 22 in support of their contentions, cannot be accepted, since they are not covered by the scheme of pension introduced by the banks with effect from 1-11-1993.” 6. In view of the fact that the petitioners have resigned their job and such a resignation was properly accepted by the respondent-Bank, the petitioners are not eligible to avail the pension scheme and thus, there is no infirmity in respect of the orders impugned passed by the respondents. 7. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.