CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has held that a resigned employee of Canara Bank cannot claim rights for the pension scheme if he had already opted for the provident fund scheme. Justice SM Subramaniam passed the orders on Thursday while dismissing a petition filed by S Gunasekaran who resigned from the bank and was relieved from duty on July 31, 2008.
As per a circular issued in 2010, the bank offered a pension scheme for in-service employees and those who retired on or after October 27, 2010. Gunasekaran wanted to join the pension scheme but it was rejected by the bank. Challenging this, he filed a petition before the HC.
The judge said the petitioner submitted an application for resignation and it was accepted by the bank. When he was in service, the Pension Regulation of 1995 was in force and it contemplates voluntary retirement. However, for reasons best known to him, the petitioner opted for the provident fund scheme and not the pension scheme.
Once an employee opts for the PF scheme, he is entitled to get all the benefits under the said scheme and he cannot switch over to the other scheme unless there is a provision to do so, the judge said, adding that the petitioner is to be treated as a resigned employee. With reference to the 2010 circular, it was extended as a special case to retired and in-service employees of the respondent bank.
Since the petitioner did not come under the category of retired employee, his case was not considered under the pension scheme, the judge said. The petitioner was considered as a resigned employee and resignation amounts to a forfeiture of his past services, and therefore, the decision taken by the bank is in consonance with the regulations of the bank and is in accordance with settled principles. "Thus, there is no infirmity in the bank’s decision,” Justice SM Subramaniam said in his order.