Pension claim

The Banking or any other rule(s) do not have retrospective effect, accodingly the Pension Rules, 1995 do not apply in your case. 

The cutoff dare under the pension rules being first January 1986, my claim seems to fall within that date.

What your personal depart saying on this? However any rule if unconstitutional, can be challenged. 

They are quoting regulation 22 as per which a resignee has to forfeit the past services. 

A definite distinction has to be made between routine resignation and a resignation for health reasons. 

The dichotomic approach of the bank is that I have been admitted to the medical benefits for which retirees are entitled biut I have been denied pension.

While it is said on resignation, employer- employee relationship ceases, does not extension of medical benefits to a resignee revive such a relationship? When it is revived, there is no forfeiture of past service and so the status should provide scope for pension also.

Contact high court advocate and if possible file w.p 

No definite suggestion requires perusal of  the relevant rules and regulations.

They are all highly prejudiced. No one shows interest obsessed as they are all with regulation 22 of Pension Regulations 1995 without a mind for flexibility in approach. In the circumstances I am helpless.

It is impossible that there could be a uniform or common regulation applicable to all the Bank employees. Please post facts, not opinions or adjectives.

Resignation is covered by regulation 22 of Pension Regulations 1995. Unfortunately it treats all resignations alike. Resignation for health reasons and that too at a time when pension regulations had not come into force though covered by the cutoff date. A pragmatic approach is all that is required on humanitarian grounds. The question is who will bell the cat?

Once you resigned from services in 1986 and pension regulation came into existence in 1995.  Those who retired before 1995 are not eligible.  If any employees joins in 1985/1986 and resigned after the date in 1995, they are eligible.

Joined service on 10th October 1967.

Resigned on 3rd March 1986 for health reasons.

Resignation accepted on 15th Oct 1986 with retrospective effect from 3rd March 1986

Pension Regulations of 1995 are retrospectively from 1st January 1986, so the resigned is well protected by the cutoff date.

While he (resignee)has been admitted by the bank to medical benefits available to regular retirees, he has been denied pension under regulation 22 of the pension rules - that the resigned has not served for 20 years.

On the date of resignation, pension regulation had not come into force at all.

Treating all pensions alike they say that on resignation, the employer - employee relationship ceases. If that is the case, when the resignee is admitted to medical benefits, is not the relationship revived? Should it not then provide scope for a case for pension on medical grounds?

How can a person be denied pension as a resigned and at the same time be entitled to medical benefits open to regular retirees?

This is an anomaly in approach much to the detriment of the resignee under medical grounds.

This is the gist of the case.

Are you sure qua your statement inter alia, that, "Pension Regulations of 1995 are retrospectively from 1st January 1986, so the resigned is well protected by the cutoff date" ?

If so, issue legal notice through a local prudent lawyer as you have a strong case.
 

In fact a w.p. was filed in Madras High court which was dismissed in 2017. Regulation 22 seems to blind people on all the other surrounding factors other than qualifying service of 20 years sans resignation..

Each bank has its own regulations. As such, any meaningful suggestion requires that you need to post the relevant iformation as to the Bank where you had worked and the specific regulation, as applicable. It does not help your cause to go on repeating the inchoate facts.