MAHENDRA KUMAR GUPTA S O LATE SRI SATYA PAL GUPTA Vs. CENTRAL MANAGER PENSION DEPTT CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL BANK OF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 08/09.04.2002 passed by the Chief Manager, P.R.S. Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Agra, and further for direction to the respondents to pay pension to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Accountant in the Central Bank of India and was posted at MMH College Branch, Ghaziabad. Under the provisions of the Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Rules 1993 (in short referred to as 1993 Rules) an option was given to the employees to convert from Contribution Provident Fund (CPF) Pension. In CPF scheme both the employer and the employee contribute certain amount for the said fund, however, in the pension policy the contribution is only by the employee and not the employer. The bank has given opportunity at different time to its employees for opting for conversion of the CPF to pension. The first chance was from 28.04.1994 till 31.07.1994 which was extended till 30.11.1994. Second option was given from 29.09.1995 to 26.01.1996. The petitioner applied for the conversion from CPF to pension and submitted the option on 30.11.1994, authorizing for transfer of his contribution. The Branch Manager Navyug Market, Ghaziabad, forwarded papers of four officials of the bank on 02.03.1995 to the Regional Office, Meerut. The name of the petitioner is mentioned is at SI. No. 4 in the said covering letter (which has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition). Thereafter, the Branch Manager vide letter dated 10.03.1995 (Annexure-6 to the 9 petition) informed the Regional Office that he had received all the forms within time but on account of certain defects pointed out by the Regional Office, Agra there was delay in submitting the same. Further again vide letter dated 10.05.1995 (Annexure-7) the Branch Manager reiterated his earlier stand and mentioned that forms had been sent to the Zonal Office. The Bank continued with the correspondence and the name of the petitioner (M. K. Gupta) was not approved for registration under the pension scheme and accordingly he was not given pension.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said action the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 82254 of 2001 for a direction to the respondents to release the pensionary benefits. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 26.11.2001 directing the respondent bank to pass speaking orders calculating the amount, which the petitioner is entitled and also to pay the same within two months. Subsequently the bank filed recall application of the order dated 26.11.2001, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 08.03.2002. The Court observed that the bank was required to pass speaking order with regard to the amount due to the petitioner and in case no amount was due to the petitioner it was always open to the bank to pass such orders and communicate the same.