LAWS(SC)-2005-7-13

JAI SINGH B CHAUHAN Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Decided On July 20, 2005
JAI SINGH B.CHAUHAN Appellant
V/S
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Writ Petition No. 5136 of 2000 filed by the appellant. High Court held that the appellant having not exercised option within the prescribed period was not eligible to be covered by the respondent No. 1-Banks Pension Scheme.

(3.) The factual controversy lies within a very narrow compass and it is essentially as follows : The appellant joined as clerk in the erstwhile New Bank of India Ltd. (in short the NBI) on 10th February, 1979. Later on, he joined the Punjab National Bank, the Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Employer-Bank). In exercise of power conferred by Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (in short the Act), the Board of Directors of Respondent No. 1-Bank framed Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). Originally, option was given to the employees to opt for the Pension Scheme, which was called for vide Circular dated 27-6-1994. As per the said Circular, eligible employees were required to exercise the option on or before 13-9-1994. Subsequently, it was extended up to 30-11-1994. This was at the Draft Scheme stage. After the Pension Scheme was finalized it was published in the Official Gazette dated 29-9-1995. Undisputedly, the appellant had not exercised the option within the time indicated at the Draft Scheme stage. As per the Gazette Notification, the option was to be exercised within 120 days from the date of Gazette Noification. Therefore, the last date was 27-1-1996. The appellant undisputedly had not exercised the option within the time stipulated in the scheme. Appellant made representation on 4-5-1998 with a request to be covered by the scheme. That representation was not in the requisite form. The respondents rejected the claim of appellant that he is to be governed by the Pension Scheme. The said decision dated 22-7-2000 of the respondent No. 1-Bank was challenged by filing the writ petition. The High Court found that not only the option was not exercised within time, but also the appellant was utilizing the amounts deposited in the Provident Fund Account. It was noted that the Provident Fund was substituted by the Pension Scheme for those who exercise the option.