TRILOKI NATH TANDON Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to record option for pension furnished on 28.11.1994 under Regulations 1993 before the respondent No. 4 attended with further prayed to release arrears of pension since Dec. 2001. The petitioner has prayed for further relief of paying interest on delayed payment of terminal dues with effect from 30.11.2001.

(2.) Petitioner a clerk in Allahabad Bank entered the service of the Bank on 24.6.1964 and retired from service on 30.11.2001 upon attaining the age of superannuation. It is averred that the Bank floated new pension scheme and framed Allahabad Bank Employee Pension Regulations, 1993 which was commenced to be effective from 1.11.1993. The University Branch Moti Katra Hing Ki Mandi Agra of the said Bank also received the circular dated 6.9.1994 pursuant to which the petitioner opted for the said pension scheme by exercising his option on the prescribed proforma signifying therein the transfer of entire contribution of the Bank alongwith interest accruing thereon to the credit of pension fund to be created for the purpose. It is further submitted that the petitioner by means of letter dated 20.8.2001 furnished requisite particulars as desired including the copy of pension option Form dated 28.11.94 which were duly forwarded by the Branch Manager of the Agra University Branch, Agra by means of letter dated 24.8.2001. As stated supra, the petitioner was superannuated on 30.11.2001. Due to non-receipt of terminal dues, the petitioner suffered financial straits and consequently, represented to all concerned to expedite payment of terminal dues as a result of which the amount of gratuity was released and credited to the account of the petitioner after a lapse of four months on 16.3.2002. By means of letter dated 5.4.2002 the Head office of the Bank released Provident Fund Balance disregarding the option exercised by the petitioner against which the petitioners represented to the authority at the Headquarter. The communication that was received in response to the representation aforestated was that the option was not recorded at its end. It is in the above backdrop that the petition has been filed for the relief claimed herein.

(3.) It brooks no dispute that the petitioner furnished option on prescribed proforma and within time which was duly forwarded by the Branch Manager. It is also borne out from the record that the petitioner had authorised the Bank to make deduction towards contribution under the Pension Scheme and further that the petitioner retired on 30.11.2001 is also beyond the pale of dispute. What was then the causative factor for disapproving the option exercised by the petitioner? The learned Counsel has alluded to wrong enumeration of PPF Account No. 4089 instead of 4039 as the causative factor but at the same time, he emphasised that the prescribed form filled by the petitioner contained correct PPF number and the mistake crept into sometime when the option was protracting for consideration before the competent authority. He further submitted that even if there had occurred some arithmetical mistake, the right that had accrued to the petitioner under the new pension scheme after he had exercised the option cannot be sacrificed at the altar of mere technicalities, Sri Himanshu Tiwari appearing for the Bank emphatically contended that it was option submitted by the petitioner, which contained incorrect PPF Account No. 4089 and as a result, action could not be taken and that in the circumstances, the petitioners cannot take advantage of his own mistake. He further submitted that it was statutory requirement to enumerate correct PPF account and he having enumerated incorrect PPF account, the option of the petitioner could not be considered to be a valid option and it was rightly rejected as invalid option.