LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 23 September 2026

Is a resigned former employee with the minimum of ten years of qualifying service eligible for pension under Regulation 14 of the Indian Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995?

K.Kasinathan v. Indian Bank
WA.2325/2026 · 2026:MHC:3966 · WA No. 2325 of 2026
Coram: Justice S. M. Subramaniam · Justice Krishnaswamy Govindarajan
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Regulation 14 Indian Bank (Emplo…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

A resigned former employee with the minimum of ten years of qualifying service is eligible for pension under Regulation 14.

Yes. A resigned former employee with the minimum of ten years of qualifying service is eligible for pension under Regulation 14. Clause 37 of the 12th Bipartite Settlement dated 08.03.2024 opened the option to those in service on or after 01.01.1986 who resigned on or before 26.04.2010, and the amendment of 14.10.2025 inserting the definition of a resigned former employee was made in consonance with it. The appellant, with 17 years of service, met these conditions.

Headnote

Indian Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 — Regulations 14 and 29 — 12th Bipartite Settlement — Clause 37 — Resigned former employee — Qualifying service — Pension — Pension Regulations, 1995 — Regulation 29 — Voluntary retirement — 20 years of qualifying service — Held: The requirement of 20 years of qualifying service applies only to accepting a voluntary retirement application under Regulation 29, which has no application to erstwhile employees who resigned the post. (¶9) Pension Regulations, 1995 — Regulation 14 — Resigned former employee — Minimum qualifying service — Held further: An employee in service after 01.01.1986 who resigned before 26.04.2010 with the minimum of ten years of qualifying service is eligible for pension under Regulation 14, consistently with Clause 37 and the amendment of 14.10.2025. (¶10, 11) Clause 37, 12th Bipartite Settlement — Refund of Provident Fund contribution — Undertaking — Held further: He must agree to refund the Bank's contribution to Provident Fund with accumulated interest and execute an undertaking, whereupon the Bank is bound to permit him to join the Pension Scheme. Writ appeal allowed. (¶11, 12)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 10The case of the appellant is to be considered under Regulation 14, which denotes qualifying service for grant of pension. Under the Pension Regulations, 1995, an employee who rendered minimum service in the bank is eligible. In the present case, the appellant completed 17 years of qualifying service and therefore he possessed the minimum qualifying service of ten years for availing the benefit of pension scheme of the year 1995. This position has been accepted between the bank and the employees union in 12th Bipartite Settlement dated 08.03.2024 under Clause 37(i)(a), (b) and (c) the conditions are stipulated to join the Pension Scheme. In the present case, the appellant was in service of the bank after 01.01.1986 and resigned from service before 26.04.2010, the cut-off date fixed in the Bipartite Settlement. He is otherwise eligible for pension under Regulation 14 of the Pension Scheme since he had completed 10 years of qualifying service, which is the eligibility criteria contemplated under Regulation 14 of the Scheme.
Paragraph 11A reading of the amendment would also show that it was made in consonance with the Bipartite Settlement. Therefore, there is no impediment for the appellant to join the Pension Scheme. However, conditions (b) and (c) under Clause 37 (1) of the 12th Bipartite Settlement dated 08.03.2024 are to be complied with by the appellant. Accordingly, he must agree to refund to the bank the entire bank’s contribution to Provident Fund (along with accumulated interest thereon) received by him at the time of his resignation or later from the bank and he must execute an undertaking as per the draft provided by the Bank. On complying with those two conditions, the Bank is bound to permit the appellant to join the Pension Scheme of the year 1995 and all benefits contemplated under the Pension Scheme is to be extended to the appellant along with consequential monetary benefits. The respondent bank is directed to permit the appellant to join the Pension Scheme of the year 1995 ie., Indian Bank Employees Pension Regulations 1995 and grant all the pension benefits admissible under the said Regulations by following the procedures as contemplated under the Regulations. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Acts & Sections
Regulation 14 Indian Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995Regulation 29 Indian Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of K.Kasinathan v. Indian Bank — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does Regulation 29 of the Indian Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 apply to erstwhile employees who resigned the post?Must a resigned former employee joining the Pension Scheme under Clause 37 of the 12th Bipartite Settlement refund the Bank's contribution to Provident Fund and execute an undertaking?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections