PR.PERICHIAPPAN Vs. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed in the respondent Bank on 22.07.1980 and retired from service under Voluntary Retirement Scheme- 2000, on 27.03.2001. He has put in twenty years of service. Thereafter, he joined a private company and became a Non-Resident Indian based in Singapore. At the time of his retirement, he has opted for Provident Fund Scheme. Later, on negotiations between the Management of the Banks and Indian Banks Associations, a Bipartite Settlement Agreement was reached for revision of pay scales and other connected benefits, which includes pension option also. As per the joint note signed by the Management and the Employees' Association on 27.04.2010, it is recommended to provide one more option for availing Pension Scheme. The respondent Bank, as per its own pension regulations, has provided another option to those who rendered service prior to 29.09.1995 and retired on 27.04.2010, eligible for pension. Last date for exercising option was fixed as 31.10.2010. Since the petitioner was out of India at that time, he could not exercise the option before the last date specified by the respondent Bank viz., 31.10.2010. The fund gap was estimated as Rs.3115 Crores and the Government of India has also paid from the consolidated fund to materialize this scheme. The petitioner came to know of the option only in October 2011 and he wrote a letter to include him in the Pension Scheme. The respondent Bank has rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that it was submitted after the expiry of the last date fixed by the Bank, by letter dated 14.12.2011. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the fixation of last date by the respondent Bank is not legal as it was not the criteria in the joint note signed by the Management and Officers' Association dated 27.04.2010. What is not imposed in the Bipartite Settlement cannot be imposed by the Bank while implementing the Scheme. It should be left open, so that the petitioner could exercise the option at a later date also.

(3.) He would rely on the judgment of the Bombay High Court, in K.K.BALASUBRAMANIAM VS. UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS AND BATCH [W.P.NO.242 OF 2015 AND ETC., BATCH DECIDED ON 19.03.2019] wherein it has directed the Bank to accept the option exercised by the employee, as it was not within the knowledge of the petitioner therein. In the said judgment, relying on its own judgment in KAYOLI SORABJI MIRZA VS. UNION BANK OF INDIA [W.P.NO.1020 OF 2012 DECIDED ON 12.06.2013] the Bombay High Court has held as under: