Resignation pension eligibility requires ten years’ service, not the twenty years required for voluntary retirement.

The appellant joined Indian Bank on 26 December 1977 and resigned on 19 February 1995, after 17 years, one month and 24 days of service.

He had received his terminal benefits.

The Bank rejected his claim to join the Pension Scheme, citing his resignation before the scheme came into force and his failure to complete 20 years of qualifying service.

The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition; he appealed.

Whether the appellant, who resigned before the Pension Scheme came into force and had completed 17 years of service, was eligible to join the scheme under the applicable Regulations and the 12th Bipartite Settlement.

Whether the appellant’s eligibility depended on completing 20 years of qualifying service.

Regulation 14 of the Indian Bank (Employees Pension Regulations), 1995 provides that, subject to the Regulations, an employee with at least ten years of service on retirement or deemed retirement qualifies for pension.

Regulation 29 concerns pension on voluntary retirement and requires 20 years of qualifying service for voluntary retirement; that threshold does not govern a former employee who resigned.

Clause 37 of the 12th Bipartite Settlement dated 8 March 2024 provides a one-time option for specified former employees who resigned on or before 26 April 2010 and were otherwise eligible to join the pension scheme while in service, subject to refund of the Bank’s provident-fund contribution with accrued interest and execution of the prescribed undertaking.

The 14 October 2025 amendment defined “resigned former employee” and amended Regulation 29 to provide for pension eligibility subject to the prescribed conditions and qualifying service.

The Court found that the appellant had completed 17 years of qualifying service, exceeding Regulation 14’s ten-year minimum.

The 20-year requirement in Regulation 29 applied to voluntary retirement, whereas the appellant had resigned; it therefore did not defeat his claim.

Because he had served after 1 January 1986, resigned before the settlement’s cut-off date, and was otherwise eligible under Regulation 14, the Court held that Clause 37 and the subsequent amendment enabled him to opt into the scheme.

His entitlement remained subject to refunding the Bank’s provident-fund contribution with accrued interest and executing the required undertaking.

The Bank was directed to complete the process within three months of receiving the order.

No costs were awarded.