GEETA VARSHNEY Vs. ALLABAHAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.05.2002 passed by respondent no. 4 as also a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide, fix and pay the monthly family pension and also pay the arrears of pension along with 18% interest from 18.7.1991.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the husband of the petitioner late Sharad Chandra Varshney was appointed as clerk in the Allahabad Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank') on a permanent post on 21.05.1971 and later on he was promoted as Branch Manager and worked on the said post till 19.07.1991when unfortunately he met with an accident and died; that after the death of the husband of the petitioner the Bank appointed the petitioner on compassionate ground on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier and she is still in the service of the Bank; that prior to 1993, there was no provision for pension to the employees of the Bank and after great pursuation the Allahabad Bank Pension Scheme was announced under the settlement with the employees union and the Bank to provide benefit of pension to the employees; that the said scheme was named as 'Allahabad Bank Employees (Pension) Regulation, 1993' (hereinafter referred to as 'Pension Regulation') which was circulated amongst the branch offices by instruction circular no.3904 dated 06.09.1994 inviting option on the prescribed form; that the husband of the petitioner served continuously for more than 20 years and as such under the provisions of the Pension Regulation, the petitioner being widow of the deceased employee, is entitled for the family pension; that Regulation 3 provided eligibility criteria for the employees willing to exercise the option; that the aforesaid scheme was not applicable to petitioner's husband and the petitioner was not eligible for getting family pension as her husband had admittedly expired before the stipulated date of 01.11.1993; that in the year 1994-95 a new pension scheme was introduced which is applicable to the petitioner. In the new pension scheme known as 'Allahabad Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995 ' (hereinafter referred to as '1995 Pension Regulations') a comprehensive scheme was formulated widening the scope for exercising option of pension by the employees concerned or by his widow in the event of the death of the employee. The petitioner quoted the provisions of Regulation 7 of 1995 Pension Regulations which are reproduced below:-

(3.) The petitioner further submitted that the husband of the petitioner had died on 19.07.1991 i.e. between 1.1.1986 and 31.10.1993 , as such the petitioner is entitled for family pension w.e.f. 1.11.1993 under the provisions of Pension Regulation, 1995; that the petitioner after the death of her husband submitted an application and the form for pension duly filled on 28.11.1994 and also made several representations but she was not given the family pension; that when the new Pension Regulation, 1995 was enforced the petitioner, apart from her earlier option, again submitted her option being widow of the deceased employee but the Bank did not consider her case; that the Bank on third occasion on 27.11.1997 got filled another form of the family pension with the assurance that she will get the family pension after completion of all the formalities; that the petitioner made several representations and reminders, but the Bank authorities deliberately did not settle the family pension of the petitioner and the petitioner was left with no option but to file Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14881 of 2001 before this court and the said writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 20.04.2001 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner; that when the respondents inspite of the order of the court, did not decide her representation she moved a Contempt Petition against the respondent and when the notices were issued and served on the respondents in the contempt petition, without applying their mind and without giving an opportunity of hearing, the respondents illegally decided the representation of the petitioner rejecting the same vide order dated 12.05.2002.