JAYSHREEBEN NITINBAHI SATA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed the following relief in paragraph No.18(A).

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that her husband was an employee working as Assistant Officer under the respondent No.3. He had initially joined the respondent ­ Central Bank of India as Clerk on 28.04.1994 and worked at various branches in different villages of Saurashtra Region. He was to retire from the service of the respondent ­ Bank with effect from 31.05.2026 but unfortunately he died while in service on 24.09.2011. The petitioner has further averred that her deceased husband had opted for pension and, therefore, after demise of her husband, she submitted necessary application for release of pension and other retiral benefits. However, to her shock and surprise, the respondent ­ Bank forwarded a cheque of Rs.5,50,550/- with forwarding letter dated 15.02.2012 stating that the said amount was aggregate of Bank contribution and employee's contribution. The petitioner refused to accept the said letter with the cheque on the ground that her husband had opted for pension scheme and, therefore, the question of giving amount of Bank's contribution did not arise. The petitioner has further averred that her husband used to maintain all necessary correspondences with the Bank in his personal file and it was found from the file that her husband had opted for pension in the year 1995 and the Bank had sent acknowledgment to her husband for acceptation of the pension scheme. The petitioner has further averred that the documents annexed with the petition would go to show that her husband had opted for pension scheme and, therefore, the Bank was not justified in refusing the benefit of family pension to the petitioner. [2.1] The petition is resisted by the respondent ­ Bank by filing affidavit-in-reply dated 15.02.2013. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit to the said affidavit-in-reply.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta for the petitioner submitted that there is enough evidence available on record to establish that the deceased husband of the petitioner had opted for pension. He submitted that the Bank had also acknowledged the acceptation of the option exercised by the deceased husband of the petitioner of pension. He submitted that in the Staff and Service Record at Annexure ­ F in respect of the deceased husband of the petitioner, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner had opted for pension as per the pension scheme. He submitted that after deceased husband of the petitioner had opted for pension, every month deduction towards the pension contribution was made from salary of the deceased husband which is found from Provident Fund Deduction list at Annexure ­ H and there was no contribution from the Bank which clearly goes to suggest that the deduction was only towards pension. He submitted that if the deceased husband of the petitioner had not opted for pension and continued to be the member of the Contribution Provident Fund (C.P.F.), the contribution would not have been deducted only from the salary of the deceased husband of the petitioner, but the Bank's contribution also would have been deducted and deposited in the account of C.P.F. He drew the attention of the Court to the salary slips of the deceased husband of the petitioner for the month of August and September, 2011 wherein also, it is clearly mentioned that the deceased husband of the petitioner had opted for pension. He submitted that in the pension scheme of the Central Bank of India, contribution of only an employee is required to be deducted from his salary and the Bank is not required to contribute. He submitted that in the case of the petitioner as stated above, the Bank had stopped contributing any amount for the deceased husband of the petitioner which would clearly establish that the deceased husband of the petitioner was governed by the pension scheme. He submitted that the respondent ­ Bank has not disputed the entry as regards exercise of the option for pension by the deceased husband of the petitioner in the documents produced on record and, therefore, the bank is not justified in refusing the benefits of family pension to the petitioner. He, thus, urged to allow the petition and grant reliefs as prayed for in the petition.