SUNITA AGARWAL Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent bank to grant the benefit of pension under the Allahabad Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that under the said Regulations, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent bank to intimate its officers, including the petitioner, about the said Regulations; that at the relevant time, the petitioner was on deputation as Manager (Credit) to Rashtriya Mahila Kosh, Department of Women & Child Development, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India and was not informed / intimated about the said Regulations; that she for the first time came to know about the said Regulations at the time of opting for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and accordingly made a representation to the respondent bank for grant of pension in view of the fact that the petitioner could not adopt the said scheme at the relevant time due to default of the respondent bank. Upon refusal of the respondent bank to accede to the request of the petitioner, the present petition was filed.

(2.) This Court on 1st February, 2006 directed the counsel for the respondent bank to seek instructions whether the respondent bank could accede to the petitioner's request by recourse to Regulation 55 of the aforesaid Regulations. The counsel for the respondent bank on 14th March, 2006 expressed inability. Again, during the hearing on 4th September, 2009, the senior counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner shall make a representation to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent bank under Regulation 55 (supra). This Court directed the respondent bank to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks with intimation to the petitioner. The respondent bank vide order dated 31st October, 2009 has rejected the said representation of the petitioner. The counsels for the parties have been heard.

(3.) The counsel for the respondent bank at the outset submitted that owing to the judgment in Jai Singh B. Chauhan Vs. Punjab National Bank, 2005 6 SCC 262, pronounced since the filing of the present writ petition, the matter is not res integra. He has further contended that the Supreme Court vide order dated 20th November, 2009 in Civil Appeal No.7682/2009 titled Punjab National Bank Vs. Mehar Singh has also pronounced on the same matter as in controversy in the present case. Per contra, the senior counsel for the petitioner has urged that Jai Singh B. Chauhan (supra) was decided on its own facts and does not consider the entire legal aspects involved in the controversy.