There was numberresponse to this representation, resulting in the appellant filing a writ 13 2011 12 SCC 197 petition before the Bombay High Court.
The employee was paid the provident fund dues.
The employee had number been removed by discharge due to misconduct.
These employees resigned when the pension schemes in respect of these institutions in question were number in force.
The reference order was passed in CA No.14739/2015 and that is how the matter is before us.
The employees were governed by the then 16 supra existing Service Rules, being the Andhra Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1982.The pension schemes came into force subsequently, but with retrospective effect.
The High Court of Patna opined against the employee.
A Bench of two Judges of this Court found that there was a divergence of judicial views of this Court, and the matter needed to be examined by a larger Bench.
In order to appreciate the reasoning of the Courts below, supported by the respondent in the appeal and the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant also on the same lines, but repelled by the Courts below, we companysider it necessary to first appreciate the Pension Rules, which have 2 2004 9 SCC 461 3 CWP No.10157/1996 decided on 8.1.2010 been brought into force.
We are companycerned with one employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India one employee of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by POOJA ARORA the United India Insurance Company Limited and a batch of employees Date 2019.03.15 172817 IST Reason of Andhra Bank.
It was numbericed that Rule 1 g defines retirement as the termination of service by reason of any cause other than removal by discharge due to misconduct.
When the matter reached this Court, one of the companytentions raised by the respondent Company was that the employee had resigned and number retired from service.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. Employees resigned from service.
