SURENDRA KUMAR MISHRA Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks the relief for a direction to the respondent -Bank to consider the option exercised by the petitioner under the new Pension Scheme and to pay pension to the petitioner from the date of his voluntary retirement. He claims arrears of pension along with interest at the rate of 18%.

(2.) THE petitioner submits that in the year 1994 he was working as Marketing Manager in the Regional Office of the respondent -Bank at Satna. The respondent -Bank pursuant to Settlement dated 29 -10 -1993 between the Bank and the Indian Bank Association, All India Bank Employees Association, N.C.B.E. and B.E.F. introduced a Pension Scheme in the Banking Industry. The proposed scheme was titled as "Allahabad Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1993" and provided for existing employees to opt for pension as a Second Retiral Benefit in view of employees' contribution towards Provident Fund. The Scheme further provided that an employee had to render ten years qualifying service to be counted from the date he took charge of the post. The petitioner submits that he exercised his option within the stipulated period of time. He submitted his option letter on 8 -11 -1994. The name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No. 134 in the list of the persons who submitted the option. The option forms were sent by Regional Manager, Satna on 8 -12 -1994 to the Head Office, Calcutta. Annexure - P -2 is a communication dated 8 -12 -1994 to this effect. The petitioner submits that the respondents failed to consider the option which is apparent from the Provident Fund Balance. The respondent No. 4 -Regional Manager asked the respondent No. 3 -Chief Manager on 1 -10 -1999, 12 -2 -2000, 28 -4 -2000, 8 -8 -2000 and 30 -10 -200 that the option of the petitioner was yet to be considered by the respondent -Bank. Even though the petitioner retired w.e.f. 31 -5 -2001 his option for Voluntary Retirement Scheme has not been considered. However, the respondents have considered the case of other employees, namely, S/Shri Anil Kumar Pandey. H. Tripathi and S. K. Upadhyaya even though they have exercised their option subsequent in point of time and much below than the petitioner in the option list. The respondents have failed to discharge their duty in accordance with the pension regulations hence the petitioner prays for issuing a command directing them to do the needful.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand taken by the respondent -Bank that the option was not submitted as per circular dated 6 -9 -1994 is incorrect in view of the letter of the Regional Manager sending option forms for pension to the Chief Manager, Head Office, Calcutta wherein in the list appended of sending option forms name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No. 134. The Regional Manager wrote a letter on 28 -4 -2000 to the Chief Manager that the option submitted by the petitioner is yet to be considered. Reminder was sent on 12 -2 -2000 as mentioned in communication dated 28 -4 -2000 Annexure -P -Communication dated 12 -2 -2000 is also collectively filed as Annexure -P -2. The Regional Manager mentions that option was sent on 8 -12 -1994. Thus, the stand taken by the respondent Bank that option form has been searched in the Head Office but it is not traceable hence option was not submitted by the petitioner, is unacceptable. It is not the case of the respondent -Bank that letter Annexure -P -2 and the list are not genuine. It clearly mentions that the petitioner has submitted the option. His name finds place at Serial No. 134. Options of others have been accepted but not that of the petitioner. The action is impermissible and the respondents cannot be heard to say that option was not submitted by the petitioner in view of the documents which support the plea of the petitioner that he had submitted the option.