V JEYARAMAN Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the order of the respondent dated 29. 03. 2001, under which the respondent has intimated the petitioner that he is not eligible for pensionary benefits. It is the petitioner's case that he joined the respondent bank on 26. 06. 1978 as a Clerk and retired from the services of the bank on 31. 12. 2000 under "voluntary Retirement Scheme". While he was working in the Kodambakkam Branch of the Indian Bank, there was a Pension Scheme called "i. B. Pension Scheme Regulation", under which a proposal for voluntary retirement was directed to be opted by the intended employees of the bank on or before 26. 01. 1996. It is his further case that on 18. 01. 1996, he exercised his option to become a member of the said Pension Scheme and his option letter was despatched to the Pension Department along with the option letter of one Pandian, who was the Chief Manager in the respondent bank at that time. Subsequently, he voluntarily retired from the services of the bank with effect from 01. 01. 2001. It is also his case that though the petitioner requested the respondent bank to include his name in the Pension Scheme, it was refused by the respondent. The respondent's case is that, the petitioner did not obtain the signature of the Branch Manager/head of the Department; he did not send the proposal before the cut off date viz. , 26. 01. 1996 and that such proposal was not received by it. Therefore, it cannot be said that the proposal was sent by the petitioner in accordance with the Pension Scheme. It is admitted by the respondent that the proposal, in respect of Pandian, was sent on 18. 01. 1996 and he being the Chief Manager and Head of the Department, as per the Pension Scheme, he ought to have sent the proposal of the writ petitioner also.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) MR. K. V. Ananthakrishnan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that under the Pension Scheme, which is the beneficial Scheme, the proposal should be sent before the cut off date namely, 26. 01. 1996, with the attestation of the Branch Manager/head of the Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also state that when the proposal in respect of Pandian, who was the Chief Manager in the respondent bank at that time, was attested by the Branch Manager by name P. Geetha, who was working under Pandian, the same Branch Manager ought to have attested the proposal of the petitioner also and there is absolutely no justification for the respondent to contend that the proposal of the petitioner was not sent in Page 212 accordance with the Pension Scheme. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it cannot be said that the respondent has not received the proposal at all. Apart from the fact that the petitioner had been making representations and reminders to the respondent bank regarding the proposal sent by the petitioner, the Federation of Indian Bank Employees' Unions, by it's letter dated 25. 03. 1998, had clearly brought to the notice of the respondent bank that on 18. 01. 1996 when the proposal of Pandian was sent, the proposal in respect of Jeyaraman (petitioner) was also sent to the Pension Department. In both the cases, P. Geetha, the Branch Manager, had attested the proposal and therefore there is no justification at all for denying the benefit of the Pension Scheme to the petitioner. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner also produced a copy of the "letters Inward Register" maintained by the Bank itself, wherein it is stated that "on 18. 01. 1996, the option letters of Mr. Jayaraman and Mr. Pandian were forwarded". 3. On the other hand, Mr. Vijayan learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank would contend that the petitioner did not exercise his option under the Pension Scheme. Learned counsel also relies upon the Attendance Register maintained by the bank to show that on 18. 01. 1 996 the petitioner was on leave while Pandian, the Chief Manager, attended the bank and the Branch Manager attested his proposal. The copy of the computerised statement filed by the respondent bank, which is available at page No. 10 of the typed set of papers, would show that all the proposals were sent after the cut off date and it is not known as to how the petitioner's proposal alone was not sent.