INDIAN BANK REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER MANAGING DIRECTOR AND THE SENIOR MANAGER PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT INDIAN BANK Vs. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA MAJOR SUB-STAFF, INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -Indian Bank has challenged in this appeal the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the Bank to accept the option exercised by the respondents for family pension subject to the condition prescribed under the scheme.

(2.) THE husband of the respondent one Shivanna, was working in Indian Bank. He died on 11.11.1991 white in service. Subsequently, the Bank introduced Pension Scheme known as Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. The Scheme was made applicable to all the employees who were in service of the Bank on or after first day of January 1986 but had retired before the first day of November 1993. The said Shivaona having died in November 1991, i.e., subsequent to First of January 1986 was entitled to pension under the said Scheme. After coming into force of the Scheme, employees or their representatives were required to exercise their option for pension within 120 days from the notified date namely 29.09.1995. The said 120 days time expired on 29.01.1596. However, his wife exercised her option on 16.12.1996. She also sought for condonation of delay in exercising the option. The said request was rejected by the Bank as per Annexure -E dated 13.02.2003 on the ground that they were unable to consider their request for family pension as she has not exercised her option within the stipulated date. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred writ petition. In the writ petition she contended relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court as per Annexure -D, that she had no notice of the aforesaid Scheme and therefore the delay in applying for the Pension under the Scheme should be condoned. The said contention has been upheld by the Madras High Court. The learned Single Judge followed the judgment of the Madras High Court, condoned the delay in making the said request and directed the Bank to extend the benefit of the scheme subject to condition that the entire provident fund contribution received by her with interest at 6% to be repaid to the Bank, Aggrieved by the said order, the Bank is before this Court in this appeal.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that the circular issued by the Beak provided for individual intimation to the family of the deceased employees, which admittedly was not given to her and therefore the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court has no application. The Madras High Court as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court were justified in passing the impugned order.