Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside. Bank to process retiral benefits promptly.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's order. The respondent-bank was directed to treat the letter dated 8th October, 2007, as a notice for voluntary retirement. The deceased employee's retiral benefits, including pension, were to be processed within six months, with non-compliance incurring 10% p.a. interest after the deadline. Each party was to bear its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the letter dated 8th October, 2007: whether it was a resignation or a request for premature retirement on medical grounds.
2. Applicability of Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995.
3. Distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement.
4. Entitlement to pension benefits under the Pension Regulations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the Letter Dated 8th October, 2007:
The primary issue was whether the letter dated 8th October, 2007, written by the deceased employee, was a resignation or a request for premature retirement on medical grounds. The letter detailed the employee's severe medical conditions, including cervical spondylosis and prostate problems, which rendered him unable to perform his duties. The employee requested the release of his terminal benefits to fund his medical treatment. The Court noted that the letter's emphasis on medical conditions and the need for terminal benefits indicated a request for premature retirement rather than a resignation.

2. Applicability of Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995:
The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995, particularly Regulation 14 (qualifying service), Regulation 22 (forfeiture of service), and Regulation 29 (pension on voluntary retirement). Regulation 29 allows employees with at least twenty years of qualifying service to seek voluntary retirement with a three-month notice period. The deceased employee had served for nearly 34 years, making him eligible for voluntary retirement.

3. Distinction Between Resignation and Voluntary Retirement:
The Court emphasized the distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement, citing previous judgments such as UCO Bank v. Sanwar Mal and Reserve Bank of India v. CECIL Dennis Solomon. The Court reiterated that pension is a right earned through long service and is not a bounty. The interpretation of the employee's letter should consider the legislative intent to provide benefits rather than restrict them.

4. Entitlement to Pension Benefits Under the Pension Regulations:
The Court concluded that the deceased employee's intention was to seek voluntary retirement due to his medical conditions, not to resign. The Court found it implausible that the employee would forgo his pension benefits, which were crucial for his medical treatment and livelihood. The subsequent communications from the employee further clarified his intention. The Court directed the respondent-bank to treat the letter as a notice for voluntary retirement and process the retiral benefits accordingly.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside. The respondent-bank was directed to treat the letter dated 8th October, 2007, as a notice for voluntary retirement and process the deceased employee's retiral benefits, including pension, within six months. Failure to comply would result in the payment accruing interest at 10% p.a. from the expiry of the six-month period. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

---